HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: VFR Pilot Files IFR !!!
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:15:06 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

In article <m12566.53.0@mitre.org> m12566@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>How should/must a non-IFR certified pilot complete Block 14 
>(Pilot's name, etc) on the FAA Flight Plan for an actual IFR 
>flight .... does he use his name or the name of the CFII in Block 14? 
>I was told by several CFIIs to use the name of the 
>instrument-rated pilot in Block 14 as "only instrument-
>rated pilots can file IFR flight plans."
>
>... DUAT automatically inserts the DUAT subscriber's name into
>Block 14 and ... their computer will not let you override.
>
>[Contel says:] "on training flights it is not necessary 
>for the instructor's name to be put in the name field.  If 
>you want, you can put 'TRNG FLT PIC lname' in the remarks 
>field where lname is the last name of the instructor." 

From the 1991 FARs (my 1992 book is at home):

61.3(e) No person may act as PIC under IFR, or in weather
conditions less than the minimum prescribed for VFR unless -
  (1) In the case of an airplane, he holds an instrument rating or
      an ATP certificate with an airplane category rating on it;

==> PIC is definitely the instructor or IFR-rated pilot. (duh)

91.169(a) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an
IFR flight plan shall include in it the following information:
  (1) Information required under 91.153(a)

91.153(a) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing a
VFR flight plan shall include in it the following information:
  (3) The full name and address of the PIC, or in the case of a
      formation flight, the formation commander. 

Also, para 298.f of the AIM (1991 numbering), specifies that the
PIC's name, address, and phone number go in block 14 of an IFR
flight plan.

So it's not true that "only instrument-rated pilots can file IFR
flight plans," but the PIC must be instrument-rated and his/her name
and address go on the flight plan.  (And the same question & answer
would apply to student pilot VFR cross-country flight plans.)

Strictly speaking, Contel's suggestion does not meet the
requirements of either the FARs or the AIM, unless some kind of
blanket "otherwise authorization" has been issued by ATC.  On the
other hand, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing one would get
busted for, if the PIC is clearly identified.  (But 'TRNG FLT PIC
Smith' might not do it.)  Sounds like it's time for a call to the
GADO/FSDO.

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
From: cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How NOT to get your IFR rating :-)
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:26:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: apple.65516
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

Personally, I'm sold on the "save your money and blast on through"
school of flight instruction.  I took a leisurely approach to my
private, and it ended up taking me 113 hours.  I flew 2-3 times per
week for the instrument, and I went into the checkride with 40.3 hours
of instrument time, including the pre-private hood work.

Other factors help, too.  I think that you do need to take breaks to
help the material "set" and to prevent burn-out.  Also, it helps to get
actual, and a very fast program may prevent that certain times of the
year, depending on where you are.
-- 
-- Christophe

"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
 I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: IFR minima for new IFR pilots
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:06:15 GMT

In <davjqjc.rkaplan@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>
>Any thoughts about other rec.aviators' first 
>solo IMC flights?  What were (are) your personal
>minimums as a low total time / low IMC time pilot?
>
The real issue is not how low the conditions are at the intended
destination, but whether one has an honest and relatively easy alternate
to go to.  What's the difference if it is at published minimums
(say 200 and 1/2 in fog and drizzle) or 800 overcast and 5?  One
has to be prepared to do the missed approach in either case (remember,
weather forecasts are a guess, not a promise).  A key survival mindset
says that all instrument approaches terminate in a missed approach;
a landing is just an added pleasantry when it occurs.  Missed
approaches are no different in low IFR vs. garden variety IFR.

Now, I wouldn't bore down the ILS to minimums in a high performance
retractable that I didn't feel comfortable with in the first place, but
a docile, stable IFR platform like an Archer/172/182 really offers no
more challenge in flying to published minimums than it does descending
through a cloud deck with bases 1000 agl.  I guess a reasonable rule of
thumb would be that if the airplane gets out ahead of one during busy
VFR operations, it's not the preferred mount for hardball IFR.

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kenny@world.std.com (Kenneth R Crudup)
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:37:32 GMT

I'm so glad to hear so much on this topic. I'd really like to fly, once I
got some time to do it. (I've even had a second opinion- this one cop who
stopped me in my car told me to get a pilot's license if I was gonna drive
that fast! :-)

But, every time I go up in a commercial flight, whenever we hit bumps, or 
on that last few miles from landing where we're moving *reeeeal* slow, and
you wonder how you're going to stay in the air at that speed (I don't know
many aviation terms, obviously), I have to really concentrate to keep my
mind off getting sick.

On my last birthday, I had a girlfriend surprise me, and she drove to this
airfield, and it turns out she rented a sightseeing plane as she figured I'd
like to "fly". Well, we get up there, and everything's OK for about 30 sec.
after takeoff. I kept wanting the pilot to go higher, etc., and nearly
ripped off the armrest digging into it with my fingers. I wasn't so sure I
ever wanted to learn how to fly after that.

The funny thing is, I didn't think I was that adverse to G-forces. I take 
corners "on two wheels" in my car, and hard starts, and stops, don't bother
me. I usually scare the hell out of my passengers if I'm in a big hurry, but
after they get out, they liken it to an amusement park ride. I also try to
get in the front car on the "worst" rides on every part I go to. Go figure.
Must be that "control" thing.

	-Kenny

(p.s. - while I'm here, is there a glossary for the aviation terms? The FAQ
list didn't have everything)

-- 
Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant	kenny@world.std.com
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home +1 617 524 5929 	Home Fax +1 617 983 9410
							Lick Bush in '92!
From: randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How NOT to get your IFR rating :-)
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:55:13 GMT
Organization: The Internet

robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths) writes:
>    May 25,   1991:  First intro IFR flight.
>    June          :  Seven flights    (not too bad)
>    July          :  One flight       (too much volleyball!)
>    August        :  Two flight       (too much travel)
>    September     :  Zero flights     (no excuse!)
>    October       :  One flights      (learn to skydive month)
>    November      :  Three flights    (getting better)
>    December      :  Zero flights     (saving for christmas?)
>    January       :  Four flights     (boy, getting serious now!)
>    February      :  Two flights      (needed a break after January!)
>
> Ouch!  At that pace, I was never going to finish...Luckily, I realized
> this, and have dedicated more time (and money!) to the proposition.

I'm just wondering how typical this is, and not just for IFR but VFR
too.  I would guess it is very common.  At least it's the way I'm
doing it.  I don't want to say how long since my last flight. :-}

It would seem to me (I'm no expert) that some time in between lessons
would help the information to get stored in long term memory. 

I understand that the faster the pace of information absorbption, the
more likely it will be put into short term memory, hence less likely
that most of that information will be saved in long term memory.  While
any complex endeavor like flying can be absorbed by different people at
different rates, depending on experiences, resources and motivation
there must be some reliable averages. 

What is the net consensus of a consistant mean time between lessons for
the "average" student?  What was your experience?

Cheers!

- randy

randy@rls.uucp  <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy  rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
It's a fax from your dog, Mr. Dansworth.  It looks like your cat.  - Larson
From: baran04@wharton.upenn.edu (Dave Baran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Transition Area at Little River, CA?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:39:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I believe that Little River has an unpublished approach which is used
by the corporate jets of some of the lumber companies based nearby.

From the runway alignment and the threshold identification, as well
as the absence of a localizer antenna, I would suspect that it
is a VOR approach off of the Mendocino VOR.

If I remember correctly, a private individual/corporation can
pay the FAA money to have them design and certify an approach.
What happens is that the approach is considered "private," and
doesn't show up in any of the standard books.

-- Dave Baran
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How do you cope with turbulence?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:44:00 GMT
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

[Replying to one's own article is one of the signs of brain death,
but I wanted to point a couple of things out before someone else did.]

In article <64980@apple.Apple.COM> cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus) writes:
>As a side note, here's my personal list of the most important things to
>do in turbulence:
>
>#2:	Keep airspeed below the top of the yellow arc (continuous light
>	with moderate bumps) or maneuvering speed (continuous moderate
>	or worse).

... however, do fly as fast as you can otherwise, leaving a comfortable
margin below the target maximum speed but a VERY comfortable margin
above stall speed.  Turbulence gets worse as you go slower.

>#5:	Resist the temptation to mess with the power unless you need
>	to fight a strong downdraft.

Remember that, especially in a mountain wave situation, you will
encounter downdrafts that the aircraft CANNOT outclimb.  Steve
Philipson's rule is that you should point the nose down and fly out of
the downdraft (rather than trying to outclimb it) if, at Vy, you are
going down twice as fast as you should be going up.

>#101:	Make a PIREP.

And be accurate.  If a loose object in the cockpit isn't moving when
you bump, it's not moderate turbulence yet.  If a loose object isn't
leaping into the air, it's not severe turbulence yet.  No matter how
much it rattles your composure, if you wouldn't spill a half-full cup
of coffee, it's still light turbulence.

And, lastly, don't overreact.  During a long flight, in which I was in
constant light to occassional moderate turbulence for two and a half
hours, I discovered that the plane would fly itself hands off just
fine.  I'd bump around, changing heading and altitude, but it would all
even out and end up doing pretty much the right thing; I had to make
only a bit more control input than I would have had to make in smooth
air.
-- 
-- Christophe

"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
 I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Comet at Ohare
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Mar25.121435.15013@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Distribution: rec.aviation
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 22:11:56 GMT

 Karl> == Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> 

 Karl> You certainly aren't alone in your interest in these beasts.  I've
 Karl> often wished for a rec.aviation.airliners newsgroup

I might start an airliner-fans mailing list or something... it's tempting.

 Karl> [...] I'm pretty sure the first 747 is also owned by Boeing and
 Karl> may be at the Museum of Flight along with the dash 80 though I
 Karl> can't find a reference to that effect.

Last time I was in western Washington I visited Boeing-Everett, and the
first 747 was sitting on the line there.  Apparently it is going to wind
up at the Museum of Flight (the 367-80 is headed for NASM, no?).

Beautiful aircraft.  We also got to see a KLM 747-400 fairly close as it
landed after a test or acceptance flight... what a trip.
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ccrdb@marlin.jcu.edu.au ()
Subject: AIR USENET Patches
Organization: James Cook University of North Queensland
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:05:45 GMT

Brett,
	the patches are better than we expected! Can't believe the
colors - beaut!!!  thank-you for that. Australia is somewhere on the
other side of the patch, right? No they're great, just kidding!


	Best of luck with the Venture! Hope to race you (or watch you
whizz past me) sometime,


 ------------------------------------------   TODAYS WEATHER    ------
|               0    o         | 30 C clear blue skies                |
|   ________-======--..        |______________________________________|
|  ====                \  |    | Ray Belbin (ccrdb@groper.jcu.edu.au) |
| |    /- ___  . .....__|-|    | TROPICAL Townsville , Queensland     |
| |__./      ---:__/      |    | AUSTRALIA *************************  |
|                              |--------------------------------------|
| THUNDER DOWN UNDER .... OZ!  |                                      |
 ------------------------------------- (Remember America's Cup '83!)--
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gbraun@beech.mitre.org (Gary A. Braun)
Subject: Weather Requirements for Balloon/Glider Pilots
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 13:42:35 GMT

My employer is currently assisting the FAA in defining weather needs for  
aviation users.  It has come up that an increasing portion of the pilots using  
the FAA's weather services are alternative aviation users (i.e. hot air  
balloonists, glider pilots).  A colleague of mine would like to poll these  
users as to their aviation weather requirements.  If you would like to respond,  
e-mail it to me and I will forward it.  Thanks.                                                                          


--

======================================
Gary A. Braun
gbraun@beech.mitre.org
======================================
From: john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:07:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: newave.1418
Reply-To: john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III)
Distribution: rec
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1992Apr17.035417.6484@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> wayne@schaefer.UUCP (Rick Wayne) writes:
> are there any f-89s still flying?  you know, the scorpion -- big straight-out
> wings, fuel tank/rocket pods (!!??) on the wingtips, sorta cruciform tail.

No.  You didn't mention my favorite feature of the F-89...the wheels.
They retract into the wings, and needed to be very thin to fit inside of
the rather thin wings.  So, they were made thin but very large in diameter
to carry the load.  The end result looks like wagon wheels.

-john-

-- 
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               (612) 942-6969             john@newave.mn.org
NeWave Communications, Ltd.           ...uunet!umn-cs!kksys!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro)
Subject: Box Canyons (again)
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:02:06 GMT


 A while back there was an 'extended discussion' of what to do when you find
yourself in a box canyon (i.e. a canyon in which you can't proceed straight
ahead and the only way out is the way you entered).   Many folks described
procedures for minimum radius turns and some acrobatic pilots suggested
the hammerhead turn as a possibility (for those trained in acrobatics
at least).   The March issue of The Pacific Flyer contains a story about an
acrobatic pilot's actual experience with a box canyon.  For those of you
who haven't (or won't) read the Pacific Flyer here is a summary of the
article.
 The pilot's name is Wayne Handley whom I've seen perform at
numerous airshows in northern California.   He was doing a dry-run
for a movie about a pilot who gets caught in a box canyon and barely
escapes.  Handley was flying a 600hp Ag Cat in a canyon while overhead the
movie folks (flying in a Tiger) were seeing how it would look on film.
Handley made a wrong turn and found himself in an actual box canyon,
narrow, and with very steep sides.


      "In the chase plane above, the startled directors heard
      and exasperated Handley declare, "I can't believe I am
      going to die in this f...ing canyon" "

            
Did Handley try a hammerhead turn?  Nope.

      "But once he accepted that he was going to crash, Handley
      said, "I calmed down and everything went into super slow
      motion" "

Rather than try a steep turn maneuver, Handley made a controlled crash
onto the side of the canyon.  This destroyed the airplane but left
him without a scratch.  It seems that it was the acceptance of the
fact that he wasn't flying out of that canyon that allowed him to
concentrate on putting the plane down that saved his life.  


disclaimer:  I don't mean to start the argument up again about
whether a hammerhead turn would or would not work.   I don't know
myself.  


-sean

From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:15:51 GMT
Subject: Re: ILS approach to subminimum conditions
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette) writes:

>Another interesting tidbit about the groundfog:  it is common practice 
>for the inbound shuttle flights (Metroliners) to make as many as 3
>missed approaches TO CLEAR THE GROUNDFOG OFF THE RUNWAY.  Their exhaust 
>and wake perturbs the air enough, apparently, to form a clear slot
>over the runway within which they land.  

This may be urban legend, but I heard a story once that goes like this:

AA 123:  Metro tower, American one two three's ready at three zero left.

Twr:  American one two three, Metro tower, runway three zero left RVR eight
      hundred.

AA 123:  American one two three request high speed taxi.

Twr:  American one two three, approved as requested.  Report clear of the 
      runway.

AA 123:  One two three's clear of three zero left.

Twr:  American one two three, taxi back this frequency, runway three zero left
      RVR three thousand, cleared for takeoff.

I heard that, shortly thereafter, the FAA disallowed this procedure!

As to the observations matching the requirements, Geoff told a story a couple
years ago about how the RVR equipment at Sac Metro suddenly stopped working
(ahem).  The air carriers out holding decided to try the approach, which they
completed successfully.

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wayne@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne)
Subject: mini-course in Airplane Shop for pilots (was: Hartzell Prop AD)
Reply-To: wayne@schaefer.UUCP (Rick Wayne)
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 05:35:13 GMT

In article <648@oscar.UUCP> hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
>
>i watched scotty overhaul the cutlass prop during the xmas break last
>december. 
> ...
>anyway, i found that watching them work on a prop to be an extremely
>beneficial learning experience. i always wondered how that constant
>speed thang worked, now i know. :)
>

our local FBO recently gave us a similar learning experience.  well, they
sold it to us, for $20 apiece, but for that fiddling change (this is aviation,
remember) we got about 8-9 hours of time back in the shop learning some basic
info about airplanes, systems, and engines -- hands-on.  it wasn't anything
too esoteric, but you could tell that several of the pilots had always wanted to
know X, but thought *everybody* knew, so they never asked...was fun and  infor-
mative too.  i learned two or three new things to add to a preflight, and a
whole new way of priming that cut way back on the number of strokes.

it helps that our local grease monkey (sorry, Rich) is one of the nicest guys
you'd ever want to meet; but he's not any kind of trained teacher, either.  just
a caint-hardly aw-shuckin' sort of fella.

have any of you gotten this kind of help from your FBO?  if not, you may want to
ask them, *especially* if you rent.  owners get all too familiar with how their
plane looks when torn apart ("yes, mr. wayne, _this_ is the $700 widget, this
one under my thumbnail...").

the revolutionary new priming technique?  one stroke before cranking, then pull the knob out, crack the throttle, and turn the key with one hand while you push the primer good and hard with the other.  since the engine is turning, you're
sucking the atomized fuel right into the cylinders where it'll do some good, 
instead of pumping the intake manifold full of it.  (we also had a demo of the
Evils of Overpriming, complete with a pan to catch the 20-40cc of avgas that
dribbled out, waiting for an ignition source).  sure, it's old hat to you, but
it was a revelation to us.  the cardinal used to take four strokes, more if it
was cold.  now, the two shots do it.

of course, an owner-assisted annual would teach us even more, but we haven't 
yet found a shop that we (1) respect and (2) allows O-A As.  someday.

rick
Newsgroups: rec.aviation