HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maples@Cadence.COM (Ken Maples)
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:20:06 GMT

Rod has a great question and I'd like to see as many personal stories as
possible:  How many of us have had significant mechanical problems in the
air and how many hours in the air did it take for you to have that problem.

Personally I have just over 500 hours and have only had one significant
engine problem.  I was on downwind and had just applied carb heat when 
I lost about 50% of my power.  Not a big problem since it was a long runway
and I had the field made but still not a good feeling.  I did what I've heard
many times - when something goes wrong, just check/undo the last thing you
touched.  So I turned off the carb heat.  Full power came right back.  Once 
on the ground I had our A+P check it out and it seems that a long piece of 
black electrical tape had gotten stuck in the carb and somehow the carb heat
helped the tape choke the carb.  We removed the tape, looked to see where it 
came from but found no evidence.  That was a couple of hundred hours ago,
and haven't had a problem since.

My partner had total electrical failure on his first long solo cross-country.
Not truly heart stopping, but still quite disconcerting for a primary student.
He made it home with no problem, and the problem was diagnosed as a shredded
alternator.

Any other data points???

Ken Maples
Cadence Design Systems
San Jose, Ca
maples@cadence.com
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Suit filed against Bell Helicopter
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:24:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvusn.1992Jul22.232437.2017
Reply-To: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)

...
|> If, in a case like this where there is no reason to suspect a defendant,
|> and assuming no culpability is found, the plaintiff should be made to
|> pay the defendant's legal fees.  This would go a long way to restoring
|> some sanity to the system.

Unfortunately, I suspect it is often the case that the plaintiff does not
have sufficient resources to pay their own legal fees (taken up on a
continguency basis) much less those of the defendants.  Perhaps a better
solution would be to have the plaintiff's LAWYER pay the legal fees of an
innocent defendant.

Mark Rowe             email: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Hewlett Packard       voice: (503) 750-3246
Corvallis, OR         FAX:   (503) 750-3788
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:44:38 GMT

dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:

>  GA pilots can expect to average 1 engine failure per 1,000 hours of flying.

Remember, folks, this guy flys behind Continentals.  TSIO-360s at that.
He's bound to have a very warped sense of engine reliability.

(Mega :-)'s for the humor challenged)

greg, 1000+ hours and not sleeping nights.

--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
From: luke@cs.city.ac.uk (Luke Whitaker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Increased ASI entering thermal (was: thermaling technique (SOARING))
Keywords: thermal vario
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:28:43 GMT
Organization: City University

In <1992Jul18.000807.7921@leland.Stanford.EDU> jazzbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Raymond Harris) writes:

>	The lift vector on an airplane wing is perpendicular to the RELATIVE
>wind, so if you visualize the wind in level flight coming more or less head on
>your lift vector points straight up.  Now if you enter a thermal or other
>upwards moving airmass, until things settle down to steady state again, the
>relative wind vector is coming towards the wing from ahead and BELOW this
>rotates the lift vector forward, and you get a little acceleration that you
>see as an increase in airspeed.  Conversely, you should see a decrease in 
>airspeed when you enter sink.

I can't really believe this explanation. This implies that the increased IAS
is due to the glider accelerating. I'm sure (in my *very* limited experience)
that I have seen almost instantaneous IAS increase of about 5-10 kts. Not only
would this require an improbable force but also the acceleration (forwards)
would be very noticable, which I don't think it was.

It seems to me there are 3 possible reasons for the IAS to increase:
1) The glider accelerates. see above.
2) The glider moves through air whose horizontal component of motion is varying
with position.
3) The ASI gives a false reading.

Tyler Perkins has described his impressions of the vorticity around thermals,
ie hypothesis (2).  Do other experienced pilots think that sudden decreased  
IAS is just as likely as increased IAS on entering a thermal ? Can we all 
have the benefit of your experience!

As for (3), as someone else (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned, the change
in relative wind over the static vents could cause a temporary false reading.
This ought to be consistent upon entering lift. 

Luke Whitaker - sometime K6BR pilot (like a CR but shorter wings) Essex GC, UK
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: QANTAS - U.S. Carrier warnings.
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 23:20:37 GMT

# 
# Yes, but the point is that KAL007 was VISUALLY identified as a
# commercial airliner before the order to shoot it down was issued.  It
# was shot down anyway.  The moral is it is naive to assume that a
# commercial airliner is safe from being shot down.

This belongs in a politics or sim. group, but at least one published
report (published just after all the initial story expired off of front
pages) stated that the after-the-fact translation of the air-to-ground
traffic placed the intercepting a/c behind and below the KAL plane.

Suffice to say that when you are under a great deal of pressure from
people that might just execute you for screwing up, at night, with lots
of things going down all at once, nobody will be cool & calm.

I'm horrified at any of the shootdowns of commercial airliners.  There
have been far too many already, regardless if the act is committed by
the Czechs, Israeli Air Force, USSR, or the U. S. Navy.

Let's get back to VOR wiggles. We'll learn more discussing that.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: ronnie@eddie.mit.edu (Ron Schnell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Active noise-canceling headsets
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:29:18 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA

In article <xde.02p4@xtxde.UUCP> xde@xtxde.UUCP (Dave Evans) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.220740.16987@col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
>writes:
>> Well, maybe we expected this one...
>> Just got a monthly newletter with an article about a gear-up landing.
>> The pilot got a runway change at the last minute and didn't get the gear
>> down. He was using an active noise-canceling headset. After the "landing"
>> he took off the headset, and you already know the first thing he heard -
>> the gear warning horn.
>> 
>> Naturally he's suing the headset manufacturer. The author's point was that
>> there's just too much that we need to hear in an aircraft, and too much
>> that we don't hear with a noise-canceling headset. I know some have stated
>> that you still hear the engine and everything just fine. Well, not so for
>> this guy... So, exercise appropriate caution, especially if you're in the
>> kind with the disappearing rollers.
>> 
>> dave allen - Fly because you love it.
>
>I was going to buy one of these headsets, but heard warning that 
>things like engine noises, or lack of engine noise, you would want to hear, so
>I've just gotten used to wearing earplugs under my DC's, and that works out
>great, much quieter, but still enough to hear.
>
>-- 
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   - Dave Evans   ...!vpnet.chi.il.us!xtxde!xde - Insert something here -
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that you people should try them before you judge them.  I find that
using my ANR headsets, I can hear changes in engine pitch, stall/gear
warnings quite clearly, maybe even *more* clearly.  I can think of plenty
of people who would blame everyone possible for a dumb mistake like a
gear-up landing, and from my experience, I can't believe the headset
caused him not to hear the horn.  It is interesting to note the number of
gear up landings without ANR headsets when the horn was functioning
properly.  Don't forget the old saying, "I couldn't hear the controller
telling me my gear wasn't down because the gear horn was too loud." 
(or whatever it is).

#Ron
(ronnie@eddie.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams)
Subject: Re: Emergency landing: wet or dry? Answer: it depends.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 02:08:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul16.141105.17969@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> sloubtin@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Sylvain Louboutin) writes:
>
>would you ditch landing gear up or down (assuming you have the choice)?
>
>From what I have heard so far,  it seems like a matter of religion.  I
>heard people defending the idea of ditching gear down (I am talking
>about sailplanes here;  it may makes a difference) to prevent the plane
>from bouncing indefinitely and not necessarily in a controllable way;
>and people insisting on landing gear up to avoid a too brutal
>deceleration.  
>

Well, I'm gonna talk powered (up until the emergency starts) planes,
but here goes.

First, read the recomendations in your POH. For example, the Cessna 310
handbook says: "Approach with landing gear retracted, wing flaps 35deg.,
and enough power to maintain approximately 300 ft/min. rate-of-descent
at approximately 95 KIAS [...]." For the Cessna 172RG, "Landing Gear --
UP."

Reasoning is rather intuitive. The surface of the fusalage will "ski"
on the surface of the water, where the gear will more easily punch
into the water and cause the plane to nose down.

And as for the water being "hard" at high speeds, this only applies
to the direction of motion. The swell comming at you at 95K is hard,
the water comming up to engulf you is soft.

Stephen Williams
PP-AMEL-IA
From: dreeves@ese3.ogi.edu (Doug Reeves)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Handheld antenna and otherwise
Keywords: SWR, HandHeld, Antennas
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:34:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.40503
Distribution: world
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

In article <1992Jul24.034915.9862@cs.brown.edu> ST402421@brownvm.brown.edu (Chris Paine) writes:
>Well, I don't fly A320s, or roll 747s (:.  I own a Warrior :).  And I
>got to wondering about why external antennas are reputed to work so much
>better than rubber duckys on handheld radios.  So I made some
>measurments:  

[Table deleted]

>
>What does it all mean?  Well, I'll take a stab at interpretation:

[Stuf deleted]

>2)  The rubber ducky is good only at the lower end of the VHF band.
>    Not too surprising when you consider its just a coil of wire.
>    Also, it cannot handle the higher power (~20 W) of the VHF 250s.

Well, your antenna OUTSIDE the aircraft is little but a piece of
metal rod....  Helicial antennas are often tricky to tune.  The same
is true for HF (~2 - 30MHz) frequencies.  They work, but not all
that well.  Also, the "duck" isn't designed to take ~20W!  Don't
expect it to.  Also, the presence of metal (ie., RF directing/  
relfecting rods) near the antenna will usually raise the SWR.
Now, OK, the aircraft's skin is usually metal, but this often
acts as a ground plane which is *required* for quarter-wave
antennas (I'm assuming most aero antennas are QWs - I'm not an  
avionics specialist).  Having a 'duck inside a metal aircraft
when using VHF freqs is like having the radio in a RF "cage" - 
most of the openings in the metal are not equal to or larger than
the wavelengths ( ~2.5m).  If you want to experience this, tune in 
a somewhat distant signal (nearby ATIS, etc.) on the ramp with a  
handheld and then move inside the bird.  Signal strength will drop
often by 8-10db!

>3)  The installed antennae are quite good:  The worst they do is a
>    VSWR of 1.5, which is a coupling efficiency of 96%.
>
>So it appears that coupling into one of the airframe-mounted antennae
>(or having a third installed) would be quite beneficial to handheld
>operation.

Yep. Same goes for the FM radio in your car, your HAM handheld, etc.

>Comments from avionics gurus are appreciated.

Just a ham who reads rec.av and is saving $$ to get my rating someday.

>                                        CP

Get High, Stay High.
D. Reeves N6XHW

--
|B. Douglas Reeves  Dept. Environmental Sci.& Eng.   Oregon Graduate Institute|
|N6XHW on 146.900 (?) in PDX          dreeves@ese3.ese.ogi.edu everywhere else|
|  "... life itself represents a nonequilibrium condition." - James F. Pankow |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Controlled airspace
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:52:30 GMT
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.

In article <1992Jul28.171604.6806@crash.cts.com> dm@pnet01.cts.com (Dan Melson) writes:
>I advise you to thoroughly read your FARs.  Both ATAs and Control Zones *are*
>controlled airspace.

Airport Traffic Areas are not controlled airspace, in and of
themselves.  While they very often are coincident with a Control Zone,
and as such are controlled airspace because of the surround CZ, by
themselves they are not controlled airspace.

In the forthcoming airspace renaming, the ATA/CZ distinction is going
away (pretty much), so the point becomes moot.
--
-- Christophe

"Be calm.  Look cute."
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: OSH Forum Announcement
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:53:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO

I've been draft..  er, asked to give a forum on mountain flying at Oshkosh
this year.  Colorado Pilots Association has Tent 7 on Tuesday, August 4 from
2:30 to 3:45 for a short overview on the subject.  It will be a sampling of
the ground school course we teach.  I hope some rec.aviators can drop by for a
chat.  Perhaps some cross pollenation of Appalachian, Sierra, and Rockies
mountain flying will be interesting.

Bill Standerfer
From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:25:38 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

In article <greg.711776678@octopus> greg@octopus.dpsi.com
(Gregory R. Travis) writes:

>dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>>  GA pilots can expect to average 1 engine failure per 1,000 hours of flying.
>
>Remember, folks, this guy flys behind Continentals.  TSIO-360s at that.
>He's bound to have a very warped sense of engine reliability.
>
>(Mega :-)'s for the humor challenged)
>
>greg, 1000+ hours and not sleeping nights.

     I have 1500 hours and an in-flight mag failure.  Does that count?
Or does it just count as 1/2 and it still owes me one?

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
"I'm cursed with hair from HELL!"  -- Night Court
From: pablo@cacofonix.cs.uoregon.edu (David A. Cohn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:54:33 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <pvf.712351675@diablo> pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries) writes:
>Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul27.212419.25683@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>>petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI) writes:
>
>>> Well I believe, ( please correct me if I am wrong) that he he doing
>>> an aerobatic routine at these airshows---YIKES.

>Actually, the article seemed quite specific about the aileron 
>reversal problem.  It said that at high angles of attack (such
>as during the nose high approach to a full flair landing),

I had the great fortune to have a talk with Steve Wolfe and Delmar
Benjamin right after they returned from the EAA Arlington Fly-In,
at which Benjamin apparently did an inverted ribbon cut (the Gee-Bee
and Samsom are hangared about 7 miles from here :-) :-)). They both said
that the plane was a whole bunch of fun to fly *IF* you kept you speed
up. He said that that was the whole secret. He contrasted it to the
Weddell-Williams (another famous replica from the Golden Age), which
apparently is rather difficult to handle at any speed.

This seems consistent with the above reports -- at slow speeds, the
Gee Bee is a dangerous plane, but at high speeds it's (literally?)
a barrel of fun. (Wolfe mentioned that all but a few of the Gee Bees
were lost on landing or takeoff accidents = low speed, small fields).

-David "Pablo" Cohn
 no feathers, but *still* having fun
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: What's the "truth" about obviously-inapplicable AD's???
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:12:00 GMT

Well, as is all-too-often the case on the net, there have been a bunch
of conflicting messages about what an owner is to do when he or she
receivess an AD which nominally applies to his/her plane, but which
obviously don't apply in particular because of timing.

There have been two examples lately:  AD 92-15-16, about carb floats,a
nd AD 92-12-05, about Lyc piston pins.  The latter is of particular
interest to me, since I own a M20J which has an IO-360.

The basic question is this:  I receive an AD which applies to my plane
by serial number, description, and whatever, but which specifies a
particularmaintenance event (e.g., piston pin replacement) and time
period (e.g., June to August 1991) for applicability.

The AD (92-12-05, in my case) says, "within 15 days...", "conduct a
search and review of the maintenance and purchase records to determine
if piston pin ..... has been purchased from Lyc...".

Well, I know the history of my airplane, and can read the logs, and I
know that nothing major has been done to the engine since the summer
of 1990.  So what do I need to do?

There's been advice on the net ranging from, "get to an A&P to sign
off your logs" to "wait until your next annual and get it taken care
of then" to "make a note yourself in the logs that the AD doesn't
apply."

Now, I don't believe for a second that all of these responses are
equally "correct" and valid from the FAA's point-of-view.  

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING AUTHORITATIVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE?  By
"authoritative", I mean backed up by a specific reg, or citation from
an FAA publication, or direct contact with the FAA, or something?

pmf
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ingham@lacerta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
Subject: Carlsbad Fly-In update
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 03:16:57 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

The responses were running more than two to one for the October date (we
could try for October and do September if it is IFR :-).  So, October
10 is the date that I will pursue.

The idea would be to arrive Friday the 9th or Saturday the 10th.  The
early arrivers would get to go to New Cave (assuming I can get
reservations).  The guided tour would be right after the cave closes, so
this would be mid-afternoon (it takes a while to tour the cave, so the
cave closes much earlier than the last person comes out).  

Bat flight is about 30 minutes or so before sunset.  Often, October is
a good time for bat flights, because migrant bats are flying, as well
as the babies born this year.  However, if the weather turns cool early,
we won't have as many bats.  It is a gamble.

I have received mail from the following people.  If you sent me mail and
your name is not below, I either didn't get it or forgot to record
it.

Martin Fisher		mrf@gain.com
Steve Cornelius		scornelius@ips.iacd.honeywell.com
Robert Herndon		rh@craycos.com			
Eric Duff		eduff@scubed.scubed.com			
Dave Allen		davea@col.hp.com			
Mike Parker		mparker@adobe.com			
Brian Lewis		Brian_Lewis@stortek.com	
Les Niles		niles@parc.xerox.com
Stephen Schneider	schneide@scubed.com
Tim Barrios		barriost@gtephx.att.com
Jordan Brown		jbrown@qdeck.com
Cynthia Grant		sascsg@unx.sas.com			
Derrell Lipman		derrell-lipman@retix.com			
Gerald J. Creager	gcreager@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov	

I'll post updates as I get more info.

-- 
Kenneth Ingham WD5BBT
ingham@i-pi.com or ingham@ariel.unm.edu (NeXTMail OK)
Hummin' lil Grumman N9646L
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: employer reimbursement of flying expenses
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:15:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Yes, I believe I said this.  The IRS takes a leary eye to any
shared personal/business expense (car, home office, business)
unless properly prorated by how much is actually business use.
Contemporaneous records (like a log) are as good as gold.  As
a matter of fact there was a few years ago when keeping such
a record was going to be the only way of doing it (fortunately,
repealed).  The nice thing about airplanes is most of use are
used to keeping logs on all our use of the planes regardless
of whether or not we are using it for business.

-Ron
From: jouvelot@alexandria.lcs.mit.edu (Pierre Jouvelot)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: FAR, Part 93, Subpart K ?
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:34:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: alexandr.JOUVELOT.92Jul25113451
Reply-To: jouvelot@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu
Distribution: rec
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science


The AIM 5-1.h section references FAR, Part 93, Subpart K as the source
for information concerning High Density Traffic Airports, like JFK.
Weirdly enough, Part 93 doesn't seem to be included in my FAR/AIM
document from ASA.  Doesn't anyone know what's in there?

For a more practical matter, didn't anyone land VFR at JFK to pick up
someone arriving on an international flight?  How tough is it?  Do you
have to use the Automatic Landing Reservation System when not on an IFR
plan? What about fees?

Thanks in advance,

Pierre
--
. CRI, Ecole des Mines, Paris (France): jouvelot@cri.ensmp.fr
. LCS, MIT, Cambridge (USA): jouvelot@lcs.mit.edu
From: joep@abraxas.lpl.Arizona.EDU (Joe Plassmann)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Controlled airspace
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: joep@asgard.lpl.arizona.edu
Organization: Lunar and Planetary Laboratory - West

In article <1992Jul30.161828.2505@SSD.intel.com>, earlb@ssd.intel.com (Earl
Brabandt) writes:
|> In the May 1, 1992 NPRM (Docket No. 26852; Notice No. 92-5) dealing 
|> with airspace reclassification (airspace alphabet soup -- AAS), the 
|> FAA listed the areas at airports that have an airport traffic area but 
|> do not have an associated control zone, as of April 30, 1991:
|> 
|> FAA Region: Western-Pacific
|> 	Tucson, Ryan Field, Arizona
|> 	Mojave Airport, California
|> 	Whiteman, California
|> 

Well, as of the end of 1991 (Sorry, don't remember the exact date), Ryan
field
has a control zone.

-- 
Joe Plassmann, Systems Programmer   | Internet:
joep@asgard.lpl.arizona.edu
909-A Gould Simpson                 |          
plassmann@looney.lpl.arizona.edu
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory-West | SPAN:     LOONEY::PLASSMANN
Tucson AZ 85721                     | phone:    (602)-621-8183