How can a single misplaced screw so massively increase a stealth aircraft's radar cross-section?

In RCS, size does not matter once you move beyond the scale of the wavelength of the radar. Therefore, the RCS of a panel with an edge length of 10 cm is (theoretically at least) the same as one of a panel with 1 m edges. The screw must be so poorly placed that it will cause a larger panel to stick out so it has no electrical contact, with the edge pointing in the right direction, then this massive increase in RCS is indeed possible.


From USA AIP (emphasis added):

  The U.S. does not require or provide criteria for clearways in its design standards. It does encourage ownership and clearing of the land underlying the innermost portion of the approach out to where the approach surface is 10.5 meters above the level of the take-off surface.

You may also want to check AC 150/5300-13A - Airport Design (no mention of water).

FWIW, ICAO includes water in the definition (Annex 14 to SARPs):

  Clearway. A defined rectangular area on the ground or water under the control of the appropriate authority, selected or prepared as a suitable area over which an aeroplane may make a portion of its initial climb to a specified height.


What are these small jets and large propeller aircraft flying in formation?

The design on the belly of the fighters makes it clear that they are from the Patrouille Suisse, the aerobatic team of Switzerland. They use F-5E.

From the comment in the page you linked (or from the aircraft registration HB-RSC, as suggested by @falstro), instead, we see that the other aircraft is the Breitling (hence the "B") Super Constellation:

  The Breitling Super Constellation from the Swiss Super Constellation Flyers Association: It is the last Super Constellation in flying condition in Europe.


Why don't TAWS systems provide automatic avoidance?

I would have to disagree with most of what John K has said. I will try to provide my own answer as well.

  Theoretically possible, but it would have to be a very expensive and complex sort of system, because it would have to manage pitch and thrust together, meaning it would have to integrate an autothrottle function in addition to an autopilot function

Current generation fly-by-wire aircraft have massive amounts of computing power and are capable of linking together autothrottle and autopilot actions already. Yes, it's expensive, but modern airliners are.

  the risk level of that sort of incident, which are pretty rare outliers really when you think of millions of hours flown each year, doesn't justify the development costs.

Indeed, thankfully, all accident types are enormously rare in modern aviation. However, that doesn't mean we stop trying to improve and CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents are actually some of the more common and certainly warrant the development of safer systems.

My answer: As ymb1 has shown, this system does exist already. Why is it not on airliners yet? Well, I think it will be soon. But there might be a number of issues.

Firstly: false positives, where a terrain avoidance command is issued without need. Say, for example, an aircraft is coming into land and passes over a tall tree, this sets off the system needlessly and could very well cause further issues with traffic avoidance and airspace incursions - pilots would be hesitant about allowing such a system.

Secondly, aircraft performance. For the jet fighter in ymb1's video the aircraft performance, it's agility and power, and the pilot protection (e.g., helmet and 5-point harnesses) mean that this type of rapid terrain avoidance command is possible and effective. For any large commercial airliner, those sort of commands are not possible (much lower thrust-to-weight ratios etc.) and so the aircraft would have to respond to a terrain avoidance command a long way out - this would increase the likelihood and issues associated with my first point. Additionally, things are not as secure in an airliner and so there is the very real possibility of hurting people and breaking things when such a command is followed - if this is a do-or-die situation, then who cares! But what if it's a false positive and now you've just injured 50 people for no reason.

I'm sure there are other reasons. But having said all that aircraft designer are looking for solutions for CFIT accidents. Currently, for airliners, the main solution seems to be greater awareness for the pilots. So, using HUD/HGS (Heads up display/ guidance system). Some even now have special cameras at the front so that the surrounding terrain is overlayed on the HUD for use in low-light, low-visibility conditions. I guess that is the current solution for now. So expect to see greater use of HUD systems with terrain overlays in airliner cockpits.


How practical might it be, to carry military tanks by helicopter(s) to remote areas?

Feasibility
The maximum payload of Mi-26 is:

20,000 kg Internal or external load.

The same page lists the following as possible payload for Mi-26:

2x BRDM-2 scout cars, or 2x BMDs, or
1x BMP or,
1x BTR-60/70/80 or,
1x MT-LB

All of the above are armoured vehicles and not classical tanks.
The 2S25 Sprut-SD is a self-propelled tank destroyer or light tank with a weight of 18 tons. So theoretically it could be carried by the Mi-26.
Other similar light tanks could also be carried. Or heavier tanks disassembled and carried (but as mentioned by Ralph J, that may not be very practical). The Mi-26 is routinely used to ferry heavy earth moving equipment to remote location.
With an C-17 or Il-76, main battle tanks can be (and are) easily carried and would be strategically preferable/more practical (see end of answer for more on same). Light tanks/armoured vehicles are also airdropped from the C-17/Il-76 (as mentioned by Ralph J).
Actual Practicality
However, locations where a tank could be practically employed (predominantly plains) would generally make transport by air and (then as required) by road possible. An example which comes to mind, is use of tanks by the Indian Army in Ladakh with induction by air using Il-76/C-17 and then further movement by road (of interest, that Leh airfield from where they are inducted is at 3,256m/10,682ft!, making it no easy feat).
In areas so remote that tanks need to be moved by helicopter, the use of the tanks (and note tanks are tactically best utilised only in more numbers and never in ones/twos) itself may not be feasibly/practical, so making the exercise futile/uneconomic.
Also, just getting the tanks would not be enough as you also need to move the large amount of fuel, ammunition and spares. These are no lesser of a payload in themselves.
So overall most probably not a very practical exercise.

C-17 ferrying Abrams Tank

Video on YouTube
Source: http://armedforcesweekly.com/c-17-globemaster-iii-loading-m1a1-abrams-tank/
Il-76 ferrying T-72 Tank

Source: https://defense-studies.blogspot.in/2016/07/main-battle-tanks-will-stengthen.html?m=1


Where are the circuit breakers on the 787?

The cockpit is clean and uncluttered thanks to the absence of the large circuit breaker panels that we’re used to in traditional types. Almost all circuit breakers are ‘virtual’ and are accessed via the forward Multi-Functional Display (MFD).
— flight.org

The 787 and its contemporaries have moved away from physical CB's and use virtual CB's instead.

One of the more dramatic simplifications of the 787 flight deck is a result of the 787’s “more-electric” architecture. Remote power distribution allows for the use of electronic circuit breakers, eliminating hundreds of physical circuit breakers from the flight deck. Flight crew awareness of system state is enhanced with visual information on every circuit interruption device, including those remotely located, via multifunction display (MFD) screens.
The reduction in parts and improved design means lower operating costs and higher reliability. For example, the 787 requires just 13 line replaceable units (LRUs) to provide a full complement of flight deck display, communication, navigation, and surveillance capability. That’s about half as many LRUs as other models require for the same capability.
— boeing.com

(Click image to enlarge) Example of CB sorting by system and different states.


What are the pros and cons of a lift fan versus a helicopter?

To answer your second question first:

Generally, it is always better to accelerate a big amount of air a little than a small amount a lot. Therefore, the helicopter rotor is much more efficient when creating lift, similar to a propeller which is more efficient than a jet. In the same way, more wing span reduces induced drag since more air can be used for lift creation.

The advantages of a lift fan are mainly due to its compact size:

Low mass, low inertias
Compact size, therefore easy to tuck away for fast flight
Low torque for a given amount of lift

and the disavantages stem from the same source:

Low efficiency
High exit speed, so beware of the blast.
No autorotation possible when the engine fails.
Lift acts at the center of the fan, so you need additional jets for pitch and roll control. A helicopter can shift the center of lift away from the rotor axis (within limits) by using cyclic changes to the angle of attack of the single rotor blades.


What is a Virtual Window in an aircraft?

They are basically window-shaped screens, displaying a feed from a camera so the middle aisle suits (where the alternative is a wall) passengers can enjoy the "view".

  The most interesting thing to me are the virtual windows. First Class passengers in the middle suite will have a set of “windows” like everyone else, only theirs will show images from an outside camera.

https://travelupdate.boardingarea.com/virtual-windows-emirates/


How can you find AGL if the altimeter is set to MSL?

I usually don't care a lot about my AGL altitude.

When I'm doing my flight planning on the ground, I do take into account terrain and obstacles, and pick appropriate MSL altitudes to be well clear of anything on the ground.

But by the time I get in my plane, I'm thinking in terms of MSL (altimeter) and no longer about AGL.

That even applies to approaching my destination field.  If I know the field is at 1,500 ft. and I want to do a traffic pattern at 1,000ft. AGL, then I plan for my altimeter to read 2,500 (MSL).  And I think about if I'm at the proper MSL altitude (2,500), not what my AGL altitude is.


Are rhumb lines ever used as leg paths for RNP/RNAV?

No. The FMS does not use rhumb lines.

All RNP/RNAV flight path legs are geodesics. The only exceptions are RF legs (a constant radius circular path about a turn center) and hold legs (a closed racetrack pattern).

To quote RTCA DO-236C, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards: Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation:

  RNP Routes and user-preferred trajectories are assumed to use a series
  of fixes. The desired path is defined by a series of geodesic tracks
  joining successive fixes.

It also includes the following definition:

  GEODESIC LINE [Bowditch]
  A line of shortest distance between any two points on a mathematically
  defined surface. A geodesic line is a line of double curvature and
  usually lies between the two normal section lines which the two points
  determine. If the two terminal points are nearly in the same latitude,
  the geodesic line may cross one of the normal section lines. It should
  be noted that, except along the equator and along the meridians, the
  geodesic line is not a plane curve and cannot be sighted over
  directly.


People in a rollercoaster or falling elevator feel the rapid descent, so why don't pilots in the cockpit?

You only feel the acceleration downward. In roller-coaster this sensation is maximized for maximum thrill. A stall isn't instant: some parts of the wing can be stalled while the rest still provides proper lift. Once the airplane is near or at terminal velocity in a stall it will feel no different from regular straight and level flight.

The onset of the stall was paired with some turbulence which would mask the downward acceleration.

Pilots are also trained to ignore their own sensations because they can be misleading leading to spatial disorientation. You can be in a spiraling dive and still feel as if you are flying straight and level.


How should the VFR Cruising Altitudes (FAR 91.159) be applied over rising terrain?

First, you said you're cruising at 4500 indicated, but then state that you are 4500 AGL. Indicated altitude is usually MSL, so this means the terrain is at 0 ft MSL until the base of the cliff, which then shoots up to 4000 MSL.

So as you travel westbound at 4500 MSL, you are in compliance with 91.159. The moment that the distance between your aircraft traveling at 4500 MSL and the ground is 3000 feet or less, then 91.159 no longer applies, and you can fly any altitude you need in order to maneuver around or over obstructions at or below 3,000 AGL.

Based on your scenario no action is required, you can just keep cruising along and fly over the cliff at 4500 MSL and 500 AGL over the "flat wall" mountain.

However, your question would be more interesting (and I'm guessing this is what you meant) if you had said that the flat wall was 5000 ft, because technically if the ground is at sea level up to the flat wall, then you are still more than 3000 AGL up until the moment your aircraft reaches the wall and 91.159 would still apply. The answer to this is that you would have to climb to the next westbound VFR altitude of 6500, and you could do it whenever its needed if you're on your own navigation, or when instructed by ATC if you are on an assigned altitude, or at anytime to avoid crashing into the mythical "flat wall" mountain.

The key is that this rule applies only during "level cruising flight" so when you are climbing or descending 91.159 does not apply, otherwise, VFR aircraft could never get to the upper VFR cruising altitudes.


What is rotor damping and how does it affect helicopter stability?

I will try to answer these questions in terms of structural dynamics.
Please correct me if I say dumb things on other parts of my answer.
You ask about damping. Damping must be considered when dealing with structural dynamics, or vibratory phenomena. In a helicopter rotor, multiple phenomena can lead to vibrations. For instance :

Differences in blade properties (mass mostly, but also stiffness)
Rotor imbalance due to machining uncertainties
Bearings
Engine, which may produce torque oscillations of some sort
Gearbox, which may also produce oscillations (look for gear mesh vibrations)
Helicopter operations (if you have quick flight trajectory modifications, this may lead to increased or reduced lift needs, which induce torque oscillations in the drive line)

So long story short, multiple phenomena can excite the rotor.
As any structure, a helicopter has natural vibration patterns called natural modeshapes, associated with natural frequencies.
However, if you excite a component enough on its natural frequency, this may result in a fatigue failure, hence the utmost importance of damping.
As far as I know, the most visible technology used to increase damping on a helicopter rotor are the blade root dampers. Multiple technologies exist, however they seem to damp the same phenomenon : blade edgewise motions or so-called lead-lag motions or hunting motions.
If you want to have a deeper understanding of these issues, have a look at this article for instance. This page may be helpful as well.
The first paper addresses semi-active dampers to control the blade edgewise bending motions in order to reduce the constraints on the hub. Basically, if the blade was mechanically fixed to the hub, large constraints could occur due to vibration loads, leading to for instance fatigue failure. In the configuration presented in the paper and reproduced here,

the liaison between the hub and the blade is a cylindrical liaison, allowing in-plane rotational motion. The (stiffness-)damper system is then used to absorb the kinetic energy of the blade in order to limit the loads on the hub, which allows to reduce its overall weight.
The second paper provides some more general concepts on the technologies involved in helicopter rotors. In particular this here

is a good schematic of a full articulated rotor.
Other rotor technologies exist : semi-rigid or rigid rotors but they use a different strategy for vibration reduction and blade-hub liaison.


Is there a list of airports with Category 3 ILS systems?

According to my current navigation database (AIRAC 1912), the following 228 airports have a category III ILS approach to at least one of their runways:

CYVR (VANCOUVER INTL) on runways: 08L, 08R, 26L, 26R
CYYC (YYC CALGARY INTL) on runways: 17L, 35R
CYYT (ST JOHNS INTL) on runways: 11, 29
CYYZ (LESTER B PEARSON INT) on runways: 05, 06L
EBBR (BRUSSELS NATIONAL) on runways: 25L, 25R
EBCI (BRUSSELS SOUTH) on runway: 24
EBLG (LIEGE) on runways: 04R, 22L
EDDB (SCHOENEFELD) on ALL runways: 07L, 25R
EDDC (DRESDEN) on runway: 22
EDDE (ERFURT-WEIMAR) on runway: 28
EDDF (FRANKFURT/MAIN) on runways: 07C, 07L, 07R, 25C, 25L, 25R
EDDG (MUENSTER/OSNABRUECK) on runway: 25
EDDH (HAMBURG) on runway: 23
EDDK (COLOGNE-BONN) on runways: 14L, 32R
EDDL (DUESSELDORF) on runways: 05R, 23L, 23R
EDDM (MUNICH) on ALL runways: 08L, 08R, 26L, 26R
EDDN (NUERNBERG) on runway: 28
EDDP (LEIPZIG-HALLE) on ALL runways: 08L, 08R, 26L, 26R
EDDS (STUTTGART) on ALL runways: 07, 25
EDDT (TEGEL) on runways: 08L, 26R
EDDV (HANNOVER) on runways: 09L, 27R
EDDW (BREMEN) on runways: 09, 27
EDFH (FRANKFURT-HAHN) on runway: 21
EDLV (NIEDERRHEIN) on runway: 27
EDNY (FRIEDRICHSHAFEN) on runway: 24
EDSB (KARLSRUHE/BADEN-BADE) on runway: 21
EDVK (KASSEL-CALDEN) on runway: 27
EFHK (VANTAA) on runway: 22R
EGAA (ALDERGROVE) on runway: 25
EGBB (BIRMINGHAM) on ALL runways: 15, 33
EGCC (MANCHESTER) on runways: 05L, 23R
EGCN (DONCASTER SHEFFIELD) on runway: 20
EGGD (BRISTOL) on runway: 27
EGGP (LIVERPOOL) on runway: 27
EGGW (LUTON) on ALL runways: 08, 26
EGHH (BOURNEMOUTH) on runway: 26
EGHQ (NEWQUAY) on runway: 30
EGKK (GATWICK) on runways: 08R, 26L
EGLL (HEATHROW) on ALL runways: 09L, 09R, 27L, 27R
EGNM (LEEDS BRADFORD) on runway: 32
EGNT (NEWCASTLE) on ALL runways: 07, 25
EGNX (EAST MIDLANDS) on runway: 27
EGPF (GLASGOW) on ALL runways: 05, 23
EGPH (EDINBURGH) on ALL runways: 06, 24
EGSS (STANSTED) on ALL runways: 04, 22
EHAM (SCHIPHOL) on runways: 06, 18C, 18R, 27, 36C, 36R
EHBK (MAASTRICHT-AACHEN) on runway: 21
EIDW (DUBLIN INTL) on runways: 10, 28
EKBI (BILLUND) on ALL runways: 09, 27
EKCH (KASTRUP) on runway: 22L
EKYT (AALBORG) on runway: 26R
ELLX (LUXEMBOURG) on runway: 24
ENGM (GARDERMOEN) on ALL runways: 01L, 01R, 19L, 19R
EPWA (CHOPIN) on runway: 33
ESGG (LANDVETTER) on ALL runways: 03, 21
ESSA (ARLANDA) on runways: 01L, 01R, 19L
ETAR (RAMSTEIN AB) on runway: 26
GMMN (MOHAMMED V INTL) on runways: 35L, 35R
KADW (JOINT BASE ANDREWS) on runways: 01L, 19R
KAFW (FT WORTH ALLIANCE) on runway: 16L
KATL (HARTSFIELD - JACKSON) on runways: 08L, 09R, 10
KAUS (AUSTIN-BERGSTROM INT) on runway: 17L
KBDL (BRADLEY INTL) on runway: 06
KBGR (BANGOR INTL) on runway: 15
KBNA (NASHVILLE INTL) on runways: 02L, 02R
KBOI (BOISE AIR TERMINAL/G) on runway: 10R
KBOS (LOGAN INTL) on runways: 04R, 33L
KBWI (WASHINGTON INTL/MARS) on runway: 10
KCAE (COLUMBIA METRO) on runway: 11
KCLE (CLEVELAND-HOPKINS IN) on runways: 06L, 24R
KCLT (CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS IN) on runways: 18R, 36C, 36L, 36R
KCVG (CINCINNATI/NORTHERN ) on runways: 36C, 36R
KDAY (COX-DAYTON INTL) on runway: 06L
KDEN (DENVER INTL) on runways: 34L, 34R, 35L, 35R
KDFW (DALLAS-FT WORTH INTL) on runways: 17C, 17L, 18R, 35C, 35R
KDSM (DES MOINES INTL) on runway: 31
KDTW (DETROIT METRO WAYNE ) on runways: 03R, 04L, 04R
KEUG (MAHLON SWEET) on runway: 16R
KEWR (NEWARK LIBERTY INTL) on runways: 04R, 22L
KFAT (FRESNO YOSEMITE INTL) on runway: 29R
KGEG (SPOKANE INTL) on runways: 03, 21
KGSO (PIEDMONT TRIAD INTL) on runway: 05L
KGSP (GREENVILLE SPARTANBU) on runway: 04
KGTF (GREAT FALLS INTL) on runway: 03
KHOU (HOBBY) on runway: 04
KIAD (WASHINGTON DULLES IN) on runways: 01L, 01R, 19C, 19R
KIAH (GEORGE BUSH INTERCON) on runways: 08L, 26L, 26R, 27
KILN (WILMINGTON AIR PARK) on runway: 22R
KIND (INDIANAPOLIS INTL) on runways: 05L, 05R
KJAN (EVERS INTL) on runway: 16L
KJAX (JACKSONVILLE INTL) on runway: 08
KJFK (KENNEDY INTL) on runways: 04R, 22L
KLAX (LOS ANGELES INTL) on runways: 24R, 25L
KLIT (CLINTON NATL/ADAMS) on runway: 22R
KMCI (KANSAS CITY INTL) on runways: 01R, 19R
KMCO (ORLANDO INTL) on runways: 35L, 36R
KMDT (HARRISBURG INTL) on runway: 13
KMEM (MEMPHIS INTL) on runways: 36C, 36L, 36R
KMHT (MANCHESTER) on runway: 35
KMKE (GEN MITCHELL INTL) on runway: 01L
KMSN (DANE CO REGL-TRUAX) on runway: 36
KMSP (MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL ) on runways: 12L, 12R, 35
KMSY (ARMSTRONG NEW ORLEAN) on runway: 11
KOAK (METRO OAKLAND INTL) on runway: 30
KOMA (EPPLEY) on runways: 14R, 32R
KONT (ONTARIO INTL) on runway: 26L
KORD (CHICAGO OHARE INTL) on runways: 09L, 10C, 10L, 10R, 27L, 27R, 28C, 28L, 28R
KORH (WORCESTER REGL) on runway: 11
KPDX (PORTLAND INTL) on runway: 10R
KPHL (PHILADELPHIA INTL) on runway: 09R
KPIT (PITTSBURGH INTL) on runways: 10L, 10R
KPVD (GREEN STATE) on runway: 05
KPWM (PORTLAND INTL) on runway: 11
KRDU (RALEIGH-DURHAM INTL) on runway: 23R
KRFD (CHICAGO/ROCKFORD INT) on runway: 07
KRIC (RICHMOND INTL) on runway: 34
KSDF (LOUISVILLE MUHAMMAD ) on runways: 35L, 35R
KSEA (SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL) on runways: 16C, 16L, 16R
KSFO (SAN FRANCISCO INTL) on runway: 28R
KSLC (SALT LAKE CITY INTL) on runways: 16L, 16R, 34L, 34R
KSMF (SACRAMENTO INTL) on runway: 16R
KSTL (ST LOUIS LAMBERT INT) on runways: 11, 12L, 30R
KSWF (NEW YORK STEWART INT) on runway: 09
KTPA (TAMPA INTL) on runway: 01L
LBSF (SOFIA) on runway: 27
LDZA (FRANJO TUDMAN) on runway: 05
LEAS (ASTURIAS) on runway: 29
LEBL (JOSEP TARRADELLAS/EL) on runways: 07L, 07R, 25L, 25R
LEGE (GIRONA) on runway: 20
LEMD (ADOLFO SUAREZ MADRID) on runways: 18L, 18R, 32L, 32R
LEPA (PALMA DE MALLORCA) on runway: 24L
LEVD (VILLANUBLA) on runway: 23
LEVX (VIGO) on runway: 19
LEZG (ZARAGOZA) on runway: 30R
LFBD (MERIGNAC) on runway: 23
LFBL (BELLEGARDE) on runway: 21
LFBO (BLAGNAC) on runway: 14R
LFBP (PAU/PYRENEES) on runway: 31
LFJL (METZ-NANCY/LORRAINE) on runway: 22
LFLC (CLERMONT-FERRAND/AUV) on runway: 26
LFLL (SAINT EXUPERY) on runways: 35L, 35R
LFML (MARSEILLE/PROVENCE) on runway: 13L
LFOB (TILLE) on runway: 12
LFOK (VATRY) on runway: 10
LFPG (CHARLES-DE-GAULLE) on ALL runways: 08L, 08R, 09L, 09R, 26L, 26R, 27L, 27R
LFPO (ORLY) on runways: 06, 24, 25
LFQQ (LESQUIN) on runway: 26
LFRB (BRETAGNE) on runway: 25L
LFRS (NANTES/ATLANTIQUE) on runway: 03
LFSB (BASLE-MULHOUSE) on runway: 15
LFST (ENTZHEIM) on runway: 23
LHBP (LISZT FERENC INTL) on runways: 13L, 13R, 31R
LIMC (MALPENSA) on runways: 35L, 35R
LIME (ORIO AL SERIO) on runway: 28
LIMF (CASELLE) on runway: 36
LIML (LINATE) on runway: 36
LIPE (BORGO PANIGALE) on runway: 12
LIPO (MONTICHIARI) on runway: 32
LIPX (VILLAFRANCA) on runway: 04
LIPZ (TESSERA) on runway: 04R
LIRF (FIUMICINO) on runway: 16R
LJLJ (BRNIK) on runway: 30
LKMT (MOSNOV) on runway: 22
LKPR (RUZYNE) on runway: 24
LOWG (GRAZ) on runway: 35C
LOWK (KLAGENFURT) on runway: 28R
LOWL (LINZ) on runway: 26
LOWS (SALZBURG) on runway: 15
LOWW (SCHWECHAT) on ALL runways: 11, 16, 29, 34
LPPT (LISBON) on runways: 03, 21
LROP (HENRI COANDA) on runways: 08L, 08R
LSGG (GENEVA) on runway: 22
LSZH (ZURICH) on runways: 14, 16
LTAC (ESENBOGA INTL) on runway: 03R
LTBA (ATATURK INTL) on runway: 05
LTFM (ISTANBUL) on runways: 16R, 17L, 34L, 35R
LYBE (NIKOLA TESLA) on runway: 12
LZIB (M.R. STEFANIK) on runway: 31
MMTO (LIC ADOLFO LOPEZ MAT) on runway: 15
NZAA (AUCKLAND INTL) on runway: 23L
OMAA (ABU DHABI INTL) on runways: 13L, 31R
OMDB (DUBAI INTL) on ALL runways: 12L, 12R, 30L, 30R
OMDW (AL MAKTOUM INTL) on runways: 12, 30
OPLA (ALLAMA IQBAL INTL) on runway: 36R
OTBD (DOHA INTL) on runway: 33
OTHH (HAMAD INTL) on ALL runways: 16L, 16R, 34L, 34R
PAFA (FAIRBANKS INTL) on runway: 02L
PANC (STEVENS ANCHORAGE IN) on runway: 07R
RJAA (NARITA INTL) on runway: 16R
RJCC (NEW CHITOSE) on runway: 19R
RJCK (KUSHIRO) on runway: 17
RJFT (KUMAMOTO) on runway: 07
RJGG (CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL) on runway: 36
RJOA (HIROSHIMA) on runway: 10
RJSA (AOMORI) on runway: 24
RJTT (TOKYO HANEDA INTL) on runway: 34R
RKSI (INCHEON INTL) on ALL runways: 15L, 15R, 16, 33L, 33R, 34
RKSS (GIMPO INTL) on runway: 14R
SAEZ (EZEIZA INTL MINISTRO) on runway: 11
SBGR (GUARULHOS-GOV ANDRE ) on runway: 09R
SCEL (ARTURO MERINO BENITE) on runway: 17L
SCIE (CARRIEL SUR INTL) on runway: 02
SCQP (LA ARAUCANIA) on runway: 01
SKBO (EL DORADO INTL) on runway: 13R
SPJC (JORGE CHAVEZ INTL) on runway: 15
UAAA (ALMATY) on runways: 23L, 23R
UACC (NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV) on ALL runways: 04, 22
UBBB (HEYDAR ALIYEV INTL) on ALL runways: 16, 17, 34, 35
UKBB (BORYSPIL INTL) on runway: 36R
ULLI (PULKOVO) on runways: 10L, 28R
UMMS (MINSK-2) on runway: 13L
URWW (GUMRAK) on runway: 06
UTAA (ASHGABAT) on runways: 12R, 30L
UUDD (DOMODEDOVO) on runway: 14R
UUEE (SHEREMETYEVO) on runways: 06L, 06R, 24C, 24R
UWWW (KURUMOCH) on runway: 15
VECC (NETAJI SUBASH CHANDR) on runway: 01R
VHHH (HONG KONG INTL) on runway: 25R
VIAR (SRI GURU RAM DASS JE) on runway: 34
VIDP (INDIRA GANDHI INTL) on runways: 11, 28, 29
VIJP (JAIPUR) on runway: 27
VILK (CHAUDHARY CHARAN SIN) on runway: 27
YMML (MELBOURNE INTL) on runway: 16
YPPH (PERTH INTL) on runway: 21
ZBAA (BEIJING CAPITAL) on runway: 36R
ZBAD (DAXING) on runways: 01L, 35L
ZHHH (TIANHE) on runway: 04R
ZSPD (PUDONG) on runway: 34L

Trivia: only about 19% of all airports in the database have some ILS at all and only about 9% of them have a Cat. III ILS:

And this is the geographic distribution:

Map generated by the Great Circle Mapper


What is the difference between a monocoque and semi-monocoque fuselage type?

A monocoque fuselage has its skin holding the skeleton structure together while the semi-monocoque has both the skin and the skeleton holding together. Semi-monocoque also has "stringers" running horizontally down the plane to help hold the frame together. The monocoque fuselage also cannot be used for airframes after a certain size (small aircraft with single engine), but the semi-monocoque has been used from single piston engines to commercial airliners.

A monocoque design would also have a safety risk involved if the skin was damaged because it is the load-bearing structure.

Image and some text source


How does a flight or squadron communicate when radio silence is in effect?

USAF Instruction 11-205 Aircraft Cockpit and Formation Flying Flight Signals details the guidance and procedures for Air Force formation flight. It also indicates distress signals that have been standardized for use with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces.

To get attentions, usually the wings are rocked:

  Attention in the air Execute rapid shallow rocking of wings.

  Loosen Formation Fishtail the aircraft.

The following are some of the distress reasons and corresponding signals:

  Bailing Out or Ejection One or both clenched fists pulled downward
  across the face to simulate pulling an ejection face curtain.

  Intercepting Signals The  intercepting  aircraft  positions  itself  in
  front of and usually to the left of the intercepted aircraft and rocks its wings.  This is a signal that the interceptor wishes the other aircraft to follow it.  A responding irregular flashing of all available lights in this case indicates distress

In case of unexpected danger/target or where time is critical, the flight is allowed to break radio silence. The instructions states:

  These signals reduce radio communications and permit pilots to communicate with each other during periods of radio silence.  Use the radios if the situation permits, when time is critical, or the visual signals are creating confusion. (emphasis mine)


Are there any accurate books that help with identifying aircraft when planespotting?

The best option is probably Jane’s Aircraft Recognition Guide. It is hard to find, but it has a large number of planes and has multiple editions.


What are the Takeoff Minimums for aircraft operating under Part 91?

According to the Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8083-16A) page 1-8:

  "Aircraft operating under 14 CFR Part 91 are not required to comply
  with established takeoff minimums. Legally, a zero/zero departure may
  be made, but it is never advisable."


There are no explicitly regulated MTOW limits for a private pilot with a valid medical but extra certifications/training may be required to fly heavier aircraft.

The often cited number is 12,500 but this is somewhat incorrect depending on how you look at it. You will need a Type Rating to fly anything over 12,500 but strictly speaking those can be added to a private pilots license.

If you are a PPL flying under Basic Med you are limited to 6000 LBS MTOW

  14 CFR § 61.113 - Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

  (i) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft without
  holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter
  provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver's license, meets the
  requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), and complies with this section and all
  of the following conditions and limitations:

  (1) The aircraft is authorized to carry not more than 6 occupants, has
  a maximum takeoff weight of not more than 6,000 pounds, and is
  operated with no more than five passengers on board; and

Just a note on practicality, even if you don't get into the 12,500 range you are likely to need high performance and complex ratings to fly anything much bigger than a 172. While there are some big fixed gear aircraft out there most of your common 6 seat planes (Saratoga, Bonanza, etc) are retracts.


What's the breakdown of total development cost for the various components of an aircraft?

This Powerpoint has some pretty solid data in it in terms of the general relationship of cost to sales and what not. In the end of the day you simply cant find these numbers unless the company is willing to share them (which they generally are not).

Here is a very dated paper from the airforce that also talks a bit about what you are looking for.

This poorly cited answer states its cost Cirrus $150,000,000 to develop their new Vision Jet.

A few side notes

The Concorde is not a great example of developing an airplane when it comes to cost analysis. BAE (the company that designed and built it, was BAC at the time) had most of their cost undercut by the British and French Governments at the time. The program cost an estimated 1.3 Billion Pounds Sterling and was as much about national pride as it was building a fast plane. You can find some great info on it here (48:20).
Older airframes like the Cessna 172 right on up through the Boeing 737 were built and certified in a very different time. Regulations were different and generally looser. As such it would be useless to compare the cost to get a type certificate when these planes came out with getting one today. At the same time these planes are both still in production. For what its worth the cost of keeping that type certificate up could be brought into the equation.


What causes the ball to not be centered in a slip/skid?

It is the same thing that makes you slide sideways in your seat going around a corner in your car.
Or the same thing that would cause you to slide sideways the other way if you were driving straight ahead on a side hill.
Don't overthink it... the ball simply responds to the same forces you feel.
ADDENDUM:
“I agree the comparisons are spot on if you are only considering a coordinated turn, but I'm asking about a steady level turn in which the aircraft is slipping/skidding; which I don't think the comparison can easily be extended to?”
I actually think it is the other way around.  Consider the following:
•   CAR - Unless it is travelling on a banked racetrack, at precisely the speed the banked turn was designed for, a car will never be able to make a “coordinated turn”.  There will generally always be a centrifugal sideforce.
•   PLANE - Once adverse yaw at the turn initiation has been countered, and when established in a constant angle of bank turn, most (positively stable) aircraft will default to a coordinated turn.
In case it helps further, let’s take the aircraft “uncoordinated turn” to a couple logical extremes:

Wings Level, unbanked turn, using rudder only.  Think about this as it compares to turning a car on level ground.  This is an exaggerated skidding turn, with all the centrifugal force pulling you (and the ball!) horizontally, or sideways.

Straight ahead, level flight in a side slip.  The aircraft nose is tracking straight ahead and not turning, while the wings are banked.  This is an exaggerated slipping turn, (minus actually turning...) and is just like the example of driving your car on a side hill.  In this case, gravity is pulling you (and the ball!) vertically straight down, which from the aircraft's frame of reference, is a bit sideways.

The ball is a "dumb" instrument.  Nothing more than ball in a tube reacting to centrifugal force and gravity.  You could accomplish the same thing by holding a full glass of water between your knees:  If the inside knee gets wet it is a slipping turn, if the outside knee gets wet it is a skidding turn.
If these explanations are inadequate the only thing left to suggest is that you find a local flight school that offers orientation flights and ask the pilot to demonstrate for you.
If that suggestion isn't practical or affordable, try this simple experiment:  Get a round mixing bowl and a marble.  The round bowl simulates the curve of the glass tube.  Put the marble in the bowl and hold it at arms length and begin turning in place.  (if you think you might get dizzy and fall against the furniture, wear a helmet!)  Your goal is to adjust the angle of the bowl to keep the marble in the center.  Note that if you tip the bowl too much either way the marble will start to roll up the sides.
It isn't a perfect comparison because it doesn't simulate yaw, but can you appreciate the correlation?  Please let me know if any further explanation is needed...


Do Military Turboshaft engines have a distinctly different sound from Civilian ones?

I think your friend is playing a joke on you. I have worked with helicopters since the late 1970's and there is no way to distinguish military from civilian simply by engine noise. You may be able to distinguish between models of helicopters, and in so doing identify a model used by the military versus a civilian one, but that's about it.


Is the standby altimeter required for day VFR flight in a C172 Nav III?

You don't need the standby altimeter for VFR (day or night) but you do need it for IFR.

The Comprehensive Equipment List (section 6 in the POH) lists all the equipment required by the type certificate:

  Required items or equipment for FAA certification (14 CFR Part 23
  or Part 91)

But, even if a piece of equipment is required by the type certificate that doesn't mean it's required for a specific flight. The Kinds of Operations Equipment List (section 2 in the POH) lists the equipment that's required for airworthiness in day and night VFR and IFR:

  identifies the equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness
  in the listed kind of operations.

14 CFR 91.7 says that the aircraft must be "in an airworthy condition" to fly, and that's what the KOEL defines.

The reason that the standby altimeter is marked as required in the Comprehensive Equipment List is that the C172S was type certified under the old part 23 rules. 23.1311 required IFR-certified aircraft that use electronic displays - like the G1000 in the NAV III - to have a standby altimeter, either mechanical or electrically isolated from the main one (emphasis mine):

  For certification for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations, have
  an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an independent
  secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude
  instrument or an electronic display parameters for the altitude,
  airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's
  primary electrical power system

In summary:

The standby altimeter is marked as required in the Comprehensive Equipment List because it's an IFR certification requirement
Operationally, the standby altimeter is only required for IFR flight, per the KOEL


Why do Ryanair pilots get paid such a low wage?

Before the recent pilot shortage started to really take effect this was fairly common around the globe and is still prevalent in some places. Low Cost Carries like Ryanair pinch pennies across the board to offer cheap flights. This in turn created a segment of the market that the major airlines (at least in the US and presumably elsewhere) took advantage of. Major airlines focused on longer haul international routes flying big metal and left short hop flights to either regional airlines or smaller affiliates which often conform to the low cost model.

However the big planes still needed pilots, so the low cost carriers became feeder programs for their bigger airline counterparts. Part of the reason Low Cost airlines can offer such low wages is that generally pilots don't work there that long. Much like flight instruction or banner towing it has become a way to effectively build hours to fly bigger planes. In some cases Low Cost Carriers also offer cadet/training programs that may undercut the cost to train pilots. Instead of taking it out as debt against the pilot then garnishing wages later they simply pay less.

Recently pilot wages (at least in the states) have seen a healthy increase to attract new people to the profession.


Why aren't airports built with future expansion in mind?

Many European airports are built relatively close to the cities they serve. Airports in the US are (in general) further away, where an expansion is easier to do, e.g. Denver International Airport:

  The distant location was chosen to avoid aircraft noise affecting developed areas, to accommodate a generous runway layout that would not be compromised by blizzards, and to allow for future expansion.

Heathrow on the other hand is old. It has such a long history that it has its own Wikipedia article (which ironically starts in 1410!). It started as a small airfield in the 1930s and it was in a very rural area at the time:

  The land was at the time used for market gardening and wheat growing.

It was then greatly expanded as a military airport during World War II. After the war, the airport was turned into a civilian airport. The original runway layout way quite different compared to today, as the following image from the 1950s shows:

(image source: Wikimedia)

This image still shows the rural surroundings. But London expanded further and further and eventually the airport was fully surrounded:

(Google Maps)

Why was the land not reserved?

Because land in London is extremely valuable. The time after World War II saw the greatest expansion of London (size wise, not population wise):

  The population peaked in 1940 at around 8.5 million, before declining and then rising recently to just over 8 million. Despite the decline and the devastation caused by the second world war, the 20th century saw the largest urban expansion in London’s history.

(The Guardian)

At the same time, other airports were expanded to serve the Greater London area: Gatwick was expanded during the 1950s, Luton in the 1960s and Stansted was converted to a civilian airport in 1966. With all of these airports available, there was no need to anticipate a large expansion of Heathrow. The land was much more valuable as an urban area.


What is the origin of the term "Tyro" for inexperienced pilots?

It's just a synonym of novice, it is used outside of aviation. Like many other aviation terms (e.g. pilot) its origins precede the first manned flight and it was and is used for non-aviation novices. Aviators borrowed many existing terms.

tyro (n.)
1610s, from Medieval Latin tyro, variant of Latin tiro (plural tirones)
"young soldier, recruit, beginner," of unknown origin.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tyro


Where to download a specific flight route before the flight?

From what I know, you can "decode" certain routes on flightaware.com which will bring up this which may be the closest thing possible to what you want.


Is there a name for the area for aircraft to back track near the runway threshold?

It sounds like you're talking about these:

I'm not sure if the designation is "official", but pilots in the US (and the FAA in various documents) usually refer to such areas as a "Runway Turnaround Area" or simply "Runway Turnaround".
Their purpose is to allow aircraft which have back-taxied on the runway (or landed and rolled past the taxiway turn-offs) to turn around to position for take-off or return to a taxiway turn-off.

Note that the "runway turnaround" is distinct from a "run-up area": The runway turnaround is considered to be part of the runway, so an aircraft occupying that area is occupying the runway. A run-up area is generally a distinct area, usually off a taxiway, where aircraft can perform engine run-ups prior to entering the runway.


What are the largest airports in terms of size, gates, and stands?

According to InsiderMonkey DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport) is the largest at 4360 hectares.
According to Wikipedia DXB (Dubai International Airport) has the largest terminal in terms of floorspace at 1,713,000 m2 (18,440,000 sq ft) with a volume of approximately 10.0 million m³ (360 million cu ft)
According to this forum ATL (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport) has 206 gates
Can't find this one


What determines spanwise placement of spoilers for roll control?

On airliners, spoilers serve three purposes, roll enhancement (assist the ailerons when greater roll rate is commanded), speed brakes (help slow down and descend faster), and ground spoilers (kill lift in order to transfer weight from the wings to the wheels for more effective braking). Spoiler span-wise location is a compromise to accomplish all three goals. Also, the outboard spoilers are primary for roll control and the most inboard spoilers may only be used on the ground. Spoilers are not placed in front of the ailerons because they would interfere with roll control. The chord-wise location leaves the wing box clear for fuel tanks.


What are common downsides to leasing an aircraft to a flying club?

A leaseback can be advantageous, especially when you use the aircraft for your own flight training and travel.  But there are some things you need to watch out for:

Other people will be using your aircraft - whether people admit it or not, nobody will take care of the plane as well as you do. If you think you might take issue with trash in the cockpit, a scratch on the panel, or a tear in the seat, you might want to give this a second thought. In my experience, flying clubs seem to have pilots that take better care of the aircraft, since membership is controlled.
You'll have to schedule your flights - just like everyone else (though some concessions are usually made for the owner). The bottom line is, you won't be able to just get up and go fly somewhere at a moment's notice anymore.
You have to play by someone else's maintenance rules - While you have to comply with FARs  in any case, the lessee typically will have stipulations that they (or their designee) will perform any required maintenance on your behalf and your say in the matter will be limited. Of course, you still have the honor of paying for any maintenance performed (typically at little or no discount).
Your capital is tied up - This can be a good or bad thing. It's good in the sense that aircraft tend to be a good hedge against inflation risk. It's bad because you're precluded from using the money on something else. This is one of the main reasons that flight schools/clubs LOVE leasebacks.
If you're looking to make money... it won't happen - most leasebacks only help offset the expense of operating the aircraft. If you're looking for a return on your investment, better to look somewhere else. Do it only to reduce the cost of ownership on something you want anyway.
Finally, YOU take on the financial risk of the aircraft - in most leaseback situations, you are reimbursed for any use, but are still responsible for any finance and indirect (and sometimes direct) maintenance costs. These have to be paid, whether the aircraft is flying or not. And if business starts to slow down... well, I'll give you a hint: it's not the flying club that has to pay to keep your plane airworthy.  This is the main other reason flight schools/clubs LOVE leasebacks.


An autoland can be performed when a CAT II or III ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach is available (bad things can happen otherwise: Why don't pilots always use autoland?). The decision height for these approaches is lower than the usual 200 ft:

Cat I: DA 200 ft or higher
Cat II: DA 100-200 ft
Cat III A: DA < 100 ft
Cat III B: DA < 50 ft

The pilots must have the runway (or runway lighting) in sight when reaching the decision height. Otherwise, a go around must be executed. But this does not mean that the ILS signal is no longer available. The autoland system continues to use the ILS signal together with the RA (radio altimeter) to fly the aircraft. That means the autopilot uses the localizer deviation to control the aircraft laterally (during the approach, the flare and even after landing) and the glide slope deviation vertically until the RA indicates it is time to start the flare (at this time glide slope is ignored).

The exact details will of course depend on the aircraft model. Here is how the autoland works on a Boeing 737 NG (source: FCOM v2 4.20.19 Automatic Flight - System Description):

  500 Feet Radio Altitude

  The pilot is required to check for the presence of LAND 3 or LAND 2 in order to
  continue the autoland.
  If the second autopilot in CMD remains armed and does not engage, LAND 2 or
  LAND 3 does not annunciate. Instead, the amber NO AUTOLAND annunciation
  alerts the pilot that dual control has not been established and the autoland is to be
  discontinued.

  450 Feet Radio Altitude

  The alignment mode is enabled which provides rudder compensation for the
  purpose of decreasing large crab angles produced by crosswinds, and to control
  the adverse moments caused by an engine failure. The automatic correction for
  aircraft crab angle due to crosswinds and engine failure enhances flight crew
  runway perspective and provides optimal aircraft position for initiation of rollout
  control. In a strong crosswind, the airplane does not fully align with the runway
  but lands in a slight crab. Sideslip is limited to 5 degrees. This mode is not
  annunciated.

  400 Feet Radio Altitude

  The stabilizer is automatically trimmed an additional amount nose up. If the A/Ps
  subsequently disengage, forward control column force may be required to hold the
  desired pitch attitude.

  If FLARE is not armed by approximately 350 feet RA, both A/Ps automatically
  disengage.

  Flare

  The A/P flare maneuver starts at approximately 50 feet RA and is completed at
  touchdown:

  FLARE engaged is annunciated and F/D command bars retract.
  FLARE engaged is annunciated and with LAND 3 annunciated, F/D
  command bars center.
  the A/T begins retarding thrust at approximately 27 feet RA so as to reach
  idle at touchdown. A/T FMA annunciates RETARD.
  the A/T automatically disengages approximately 2 seconds after
  touchdown.
  the A/P must be manually disengaged after touchdown. Landing rollout is
  executed manually after disengaging the A/P.

  Rollout

  ROLLOUT arms when LAND 2 or LAND 3 annunciates.
  At approximately two feet radio altitude, rollout activates:

  ROLLOUT replaces the VOR/LOC roll flight mode annunciation
  the autopilot controls the rudder and nose wheel steering to keep the
  airplane on the localizer centerline.
  rollout guidance continues until a full stop or until the autopilots are
  disengaged.


What is the typical angle of attack aircraft fly at and at what angle of attack do they stall?

It depends basically on the wing section. Some of them stall at a higher angle of attack than others...

To quote typical values (for wing + body, since not only the wing gives lift...) a given plane may achieve the flattest glide (best range, L/D = 12, at 155 knots) with an angle of attack of 4º. If you wish to fly slower, you can do it at 115 knots, with L/D = 8, and a steeper AoA (13º) or you can choose to fly faster, at 210 knots, always with L/D = 8, but with an AoA of 1.5º.

Thus, and except for the best L/D, there are always two angles of attack for the same L/D, one of them steep (slower flight) or flat (fast flight)...

The stall, for the example I'm quoting (book 'Mechanics of Flight, by A.C. Kermode)' takes place at 15º...


Why is the TPA listed on the Chart Supplement (AF/D) sometimes lower than 1,000 AGL?

B19 is close to the Portland class C airspace, which starts at 1500 MSL, so a TPA of 995 MSL provides 500ft of vertical separation.


Does angular momentum contributes in lifting a helicopter?

Well helicopters are designed with both types of rotor systems.  American built helicopters have main rotors which rotate counter clockwise whereas European built helos have clockwise turning rotor systems.  Near as I know there is no particular advantage to one over the other, though you do have to reverse anti torque pedal corrections for collective inputs on a CW turning rotor system vs a CCW system, transverse flow effects are reversed and LTE events are more likely from right vs left crosswinds.
Just to be clear, torque is VISUALIZED as a vector perpendicular to the plane of rotation; it is not a force.  If the latter were true, you could propel craft to the moon and beyond using just a gyroscope.


Can Hellfire missiles be used effectively as air-to-air weapons?

While I can't say that I know the too much about Hellfires, the aiming capability appears extremely limited for any air-to-air combat.

The range is bad: ~8km (compared to ~35km for a 'proper' Sidewinder). Covering this does not take many seconds for jets travelling in opposite directions. I'd imagine you might be able to get a helicopter if you're lucky.
I'm incredibly doubtful that a sensible lock on any aircraft could be achieved from a Predator. Bear in mind that you only have a camera on the bottom, so you've got huge blind spots.
You got a fair bit of satellite/communication lag, in the range of 0.5 seconds either way to get any response. More likely that your opponent has already got you by the time you understand what's going on.
The majority of the Hellfire missiles appear to require a constant lock to seek its target; some can continue on autopilot with limitations if it were to lose it. Again, sustaining a lock with that setup does not have a good outlook.
Remember that the Su-27 has countermeasures (such as flares) to protect itself.


Bushings are a type of bearing that has no rotating parts. They are among the oldest bearings known.

There is nothing special about it being for ailerons, except that is will be installed on the hinge of an aileron.


Are there types of instrument approaches besides precision and non-precision?

All approaches can still be categorized as a precision or non-precision.  Some of the terminology has changed, radar approaches are becoming less common and and GPS approaches are becoming more common, but the fundamentals are the same.  Precision approaches still provide glideslope guidance, and non-precision approaches do not.

It may be important to note that many flight computers blur the lines some with GPS approaches.  There are approaches where the plate still calls the bottom altitude an 'MDA' (instead of 'DH' or 'DA') as you would in a normal non-precision approach, but the flight computer will generate a custom glide slope to that point.  Because this is generated artificially inside your aircraft and not schematically planned by a certified official, this still only qualifies as non-precision.

All in all, if you're trying to pick up instrument flying after a long break, you'll still be good to go with your basic understanding of precision versus non-precision approaches.


What are the implications of Visual Descent Angle Not Authorized (VDA NA)?

This NOTAM is a Flight Data Center (FDC) NOTAM which is used to amend published Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP).  That means this NOTAM is effectively amending the procedure as the FAA hasn't had the opportunity to change the procedure yet.  This is probably due to a new obstruction that has been placed in the decent path.  Perhaps a new cell phone tower has been erected.  That is why it is always a good idea to check NOTAMs especially when flying under IFR.

EDIT:  To clarify a comment I made to OP, the MDA usually requires 350 feet obstacle clearance along the final approach segment.  However, when flying a glide path, the Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) increases the farther away you are from the threshold (see graphic from Code 7700 Website).

The ROC is based off of the Obstacle Clearance Surface calculated for the approach.  Notice that if a new obstacle is erected somewhere along the glide path it is possible for the MDA to still be satisfied but the glide path ROC may have to change.  That is probably why the MDA is not changed in this NOTAM but the glide slope is Not Authorized.

Quote from 7700 website:

  (1) If the OCS is penetrated, the OCS slope may be adjusted upward, thereby increasing the glide path angle. The glide path angle would increase because it is dependent on the required slope.


Are commercial pilots ranked or graded differently based on the size of the aircraft they fly?

To the extent that there is any sort of "rank" amongst airline pilots, seniority comes first.  The most senior pilot gets his choice of aircraft, schedules, vacations, and so on; the next most senior pilot gets his choice from everything that's left, and so on until the most junior pilot gets what's left over that nobody senior to him wanted.  So the pilot hired a month before I was is senior to me, and I'm senior to the pilot hired a month after I was.  Not that this translates into "rank" the way that a lower ranking officer in the military salutes a higher ranking officer -- I'm on a first-name basis with anybody I fly with, and I've flown with the most senior pilot in our company, and if not the very most junior pilot, pretty close to it.

At some airlines, larger aircraft pay more to fly than smaller aircraft, so one could contemplate a "ranking" of sorts in that regard.  The pilot who transitions from the 737 to the 767 gains an increase in pay rate in doing that, so you might infer that 737 pilots are lower "rank" than 767 pilots.  Of course, the most senior pilot on the 737 at that carrier has his choice of schedules, while the most junior pilot on the 767 has a schedule that most would see as less desirable.  So I don't think there's too much stock to put into any idea that just because Allen is flying the 767 and Bill is on the 737, Allen is necessarily a higher "rank".  Especially if he's flying to Timbuktu on weekends in that jet, while Bill enjoys his pick of layovers in San Diego in the winter and Boston in the summer.

And, some airlines don't have different pay rates for different equipment.  This makes for less training burden, as pilots aren't switching aircraft to keep moving up the pay ladder as much.

Some guys will find any distinction that they can to make themselves feel special, or superior, or whatever, but for the most part that isn't all that common.  "You're on a bigger airplane than I am, but I'm flying weekdays and you're stuck on weekend reserve."  Or, "You have a better schedule, but my airplane is bigger than yours."  Honestly, who cares?  We're all pilots, we all started at the bottom, we'll all retire at some point between "here" and #1 on the list, and where "you" are on that progression compared with where "I" am right now doesn't really matter all that much.

Of course, the one very real "rank" distinction, on the flight deck at least, is Captain and First Officer.  But between airplanes, not really so much in my experience.


Have other designs for individual gasper ventilation been tried?

Whether or not they have been "tried" is probably not answerable, as "try this" type designs typically don't make it into production aircraft.

Look at the simplicity of the existing system, its simply some lightweight ducting with an adjustable air vent above each seat. The entire system has no other electric or adjustable parts, so maintenance is pretty easy, as well as reliability. Its also probably a hell of a lot easier to get certified.

Putting little fans above each seat wouldn't have any benefit here, as the air they move from one side of the fan to the other side has to be of a significant volume anyway, so you would still need ducting. The fan speed would be controllable, but then again so is the orifice size of the existing vents, so really no benefit there other than complexity and more wiring/electronics.

The existing system also works relatively well for individual climate control. Unlike in your car, you don't have a large space between you and the person next to you, so getting "individual" control is difficult (Seat A at X degrees, Seat B at Y degrees, etc). But note that even in your car you really aren't adjusting the heat or cold temperature, but the fan speed either through the AC system or through the heater. The heater and AC are at a constant temperature all the time.


What aircraft was used as Air Force One for the flight between Southampton and Shannon?

As Bianfable mentioned, this is the C-32A, which is the U.S. Air Force's transport variant of the Boeing 757-200.

In this case, due to the shorter runway, they used the C-32A instead of the iconic VC-25, which is the Air Force's VIP transport variant of the Boeing 747-200 that is typically used for transporting the President of the United States.

U.S. Air Force C-32A. Image Source: Wikipedia

The C-32As are mostly used for transporting the Vice President of the United States as "Air Force Two" as well as members of the President's family and other high-level government officials.

However, the President may use the C-32As when flying to airfields that are too small to adequately support the monstrous VC-25s. The short-field performance of a 757 — especially a VIP-configured one — is quite good, so it can use runways that are relatively short for a plane of its size. It is also capable of making trans-Atlantic hops non-stop from the U.S. East Coast (indeed several airlines use the 757-200 to do that with much more dense passenger loads.)


How fast does cabin air pressure leak after a total engine failure?

The valves will not be able to maintain cabin pressure until the plane descends to 10,000 feet at best glide speed. The oxygen masks will deploy before then.

At least that was the case for Air Transat Flight 236, an A332 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic and glided to a deadstick landing. The occurrence report on page 96 (see the table) estimates that oxygen masks deployed at 06:37:50, when the cabin altitude reached 13,500 ft. This was about 11.5 minutes after fuel exhaustion, and only 7-8 minutes before landing at 06:45. So they would have landed within the 10 minutes of supplemental oxygen. Even a much longer glide would have allowed them to descend below 10,000 ft before the supplemental oxygen stopped. TSC 236 is AFAIK the longest glide in a transport category aircraft to date, so if they did not "encounter a situation where they have to choose between oxygen and best glide" (to use your phrasing), then probably no one else did either.

Note: The report used the 'worst case' leak rate of 700 ft/min for their calculation. The footnotes explain that the leak rate would decrease as the aircraft descended (because the pressure differential between the cabin and the outside would decrease as the aircraft descended). If anyone is interested, there is more info on pages 28-29 of the report about the cabin pressurization.


How much knowledge/experience can be transferred between different categories/classes of certification?

The answers to your question lie in 14 CFR 61.159 for airplanes.  Your quoted times for the ATP in the airplane category are correct but some of that time is total time as a pilot, some is just in category and only a small fraction of it is in category and class.

For example, in your hypothetical situation, you have an ATP in ASEL category/class and wanted to add the get the ATP AMEL.  All you need to do (aside from any knowledge tests you may require) is 50 hours in AMEL.  Of the 1500 hrs TT in airplanes, only 50 are required in class.  This is the same to add ASES and AMES ATPs.  You could have a certificate with ASEL,ASES,AMEL and AMES all that ATP level all with only 1500 TT as long as you had at least 50 hours in each class.

The situation for rotorcraft/helicopter is similar and can be found in 14 CFR 61.161.  To get an ATP helicopter, you need 1200 hrs TT but the only hours that need to be in category and class are:

15 hours at night,
200 hours w/75 PIC, and
25 hrs in actual or simulated IMC

You could accomplish all of that within the 200 required hours.  The 200 hours needed in helicopter still count as total time and can be applied toward a fixed wing ATP.

ATP powered-lift requires 250 hours PIC in category with some sub-requirements out of that 250 hours

100 XC powered-lift
25 night powered-lift
75 instrument hours powered-lift

The FAA does not currently issue ATP in rotocraft/gyroplane so you are out of luck there.

If you wanted to min/max optimize the above requirements and get ATP in all of the above the hard category and class requirements boil down to:

50 hrs airplane single-engine land
50 hrs airplane single-engine sea
50 hrs airplane multi-engine land
50 hrs airplane multi-engine sea
200 hrs rotorcraft helicopter

15 hrs at night
75 hrs pilot in command
25 hrs actual or simulated IMC

250 hrs powered lift pilot in command

100 hrs cross country
25 hrs night
75 hrs actual or simulated IMC

At this point you would have:

650 hours TT
325 hours PIC
40 hours night
100 hours cross country
100 hours instrument

Now lets fly 400 hours XC in a single engine (slow and economical) with at least 60 of those hours at night and all of it PIC.

Now we have

1050 TT
725 PIC

400 hrs airplane (at least)
75 rotorcraft helicopter
250 powered-lift

500 XC

400 hrs in airplane
100 hrs in powered lift

100 night

60 hrs in airplane
15 in helicopter
25 in powered-lift

Unless I'm missing something, this is all of the requirements for the ATPs except total time.  Go fly anything for another 150 hours and then take the ATP helicopter checkride.  Then fly another 300 hours in anything and take all of the other ATP checkrides with 1500 TT.

It is also worth pointing out that type ratings and ATPs are different things.  A type rating can be added to a private pilot certificate (though the checkride will be conducted at ATP standards).  You can also earn your ATP in an airplane that doesn't require a type rating (e.g. getting an ATP AMEL in a Piper Seminole).


Is there ground effect flying below an infinite 2D plane as opposed to above one?

In computational fluid dynamics (CFD), ground effect can be simulated by flying two airplanes / wings in mirror formation (the lower one inverted).
That mirrored wing is only a mathematical trick. By distorting the flowfield in an identical, albeit inverted, way, the effects of the lower wing cancel out those of the upper wing in the plane of symmetry, and vice versa. This way, the flowfield on both sides looks exactly like one where the plane of symmetry cannot be crossed by the flow, just as the ground cannot inhale or expel air.
Now, with the more precise description: Yes, there is also a ground effect for the plane flying below a hypothetical ceiling. Of course, it would help if the vertical tail would not stick up, for minimum distance and maximum effect. Just as the ground stops the downward movement of the wake, a ceiling will prevent air from filling the space left by the downward movement of the wake, so the wake will stick to the ceiling. Call it the ceiling effect, if you will. In both cases the induced drag drops and the center of pressure moves a bit backwards. I wager to predict that the drag reduction over distance relative to wing chord is the same as in "regular" ground effect.
Proof: Fly a model helicopter indoors and get it up to the ceiling. You will notice that it will get stuck there and needs much less power to stay airborne. The rotor blades are like wings, and due to the rotor position on top of the craft, the ground effect is very noticeable. In order to get the helicopter unstuck you must reduce power a lot, such that the helicopter will drop like a stone.
In CFD, this can readily be proven by using the trick described above, only now with both wings / airplanes flying inverted to their original orientation for the ground effect calculation.


Why can't the A320's computer-imposed limits be overridden?

Disabling the protections can technically be achieved. I say technically because there is not one scenario that Airbus has envisioned that would require the pilots to deliberately go into direct-law.

The imposed limit in the question is something called alpha-protection -- a protection against pulling back too much that the plane stalls. Stalling is bad. The system was receiving the correct information and functioning as designed, so what did Captain Sullenberger mean?

  Sullenberger said that these computer-imposed limits also prevented him from achieving the optimum landing flare for the ditching, which would have softened the impact.

This is what Wikipedia says. The reference is a Talks at Google lecture (around the 40-minute mark). What is left out from Wikipedia, which Captain Sullenberger covers in the talk right away -- and is present in the accident report -- is that the issue was not with the protection, but with the innards of the protection that Airbus did not cover in the training material. Below is the relevant section from YouTube's transcript:

  I was commanding for more, pulling back full aft on the stick and the flight control computers prevented me from getting more lift therefore we hit harder than we would have (...) It turns out there's a little-known software feature known only then to a few Airbus software engineers, and to no pilots to no airlines that was the case. It's called a phugoid mode. And it was not the way we were trained the airplane should work, apparently it is the way the airplane does work. But that was not apparent to us.

This was addressed as a recommendation in the final report:

  Require Airbus operators to expand the angle-of-attack-protection envelope limitations ground-school training to inform pilots about alpha-protection mode features while in normal law that can affect the pitch response of the airplane.

Providing training on the innards of the 'good' system, is far better than taking out a vital protection. Vital because of one thing the report points out (which is in no way a disparagement of the crew):

  The NTSB concludes the captain’s difficulty maintaining his intended airspeed during the final approach resulted, in part, from high workload, stress, and task saturation.

Protections are good for such high workload, stressful, and task saturated situations.


Why did this aircraft fly in this pattern over Southern Italy?

That flight pattern is almost certainly aerial surveying / mapping work and it's quite common all over the world.  Companies like Google, Bing, etc pay for low to medium altitude photography and surveying of areas.


What is the largest aircraft that has been flown inverted successfully?

Theoretically ANY airplane can be flown inverted, if you know what you are doing with it and make sure it is loaded properly throughout the maneuver.  Boeing test pilot Tex Johnson famously rolled the 707 prototype - twice - during a demo flight for airline executives at the SeaFair hydroplane races on Lake Washington in Seattle.  He nearly got fired for the stunt but the plane was perfectly fine.

The real issue is load factor: the total load imposed upon the wings divided by the gross weight of the aircraft.  Don't exceed theses values and have the aircraft flown within the required speed range and it doesn't care whether it's erect or inverted during the process.

In general though, unless an aircraft is specifically designed for inverted flight with inverted i.e. negative G fuel and oil systems, inverted flight must be maintained with a positive load factor to prevent fuel starvation and damage to the engines.

As a side note to this, DO NOT TRY AEROBATICS IF YOU HAVE NO FORMAL AEROBATIC TRAINING AND/OR ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO SO IN AN AIRPLANE IN WHICH THEY ARE NOT APPROVED.  It's true guys like Sean Tucker have done aerobatics in a Cessna Corvalis but those are experienced airshow demonstration pilots with over 20,000 hours of logged flight time and more experience at the edge of the envelope than you can shake a stick at.  You do not have this prerequisite experience and most likely will kill yourself attempting these maneuvers.


Why does manifold pressure increase with power?

Manifold pressure is actually a measure of the vacuum pressure between the throttle and the cylinders. The more the throttle is opened, the closer that manifold pressure returns to atmospheric pressure.

The amount of fuel provided to the engine depends on the pressure difference between the manifold and the throttle body.  The throttle body pressure will decrease as the throttle is increased, because of greater rate airflow across the venturi (faster air -> lower pressure).  The manifold pressure will increase as throttle is increased, due to the greater flow of fuel/air mix into the manifold (greater mass of air flowing into a fixed volume -> higher pressure).  So the pressure difference will get larger as the throttle is increased.

This link has a pretty good description of what's going on.


Why did fly-by-wire systems take so long to implement?

A simple answer is that the aircraft control system has ultimate responsibility for survival of the aircraft. If it completely fails, you are as good as dead in most cases. Short of in-flight destruction, hardly anything can be worse.

Thus, full-authority (i.e. without mechanical backup) FBW gained acceptance only when the confidence in its overall reliability was sufficiently high. Naturally, it appeared on military airplanes first, where demands to reliability can be lower (the pilot can eject, after all), while demands to the control system sophistication are often higher.

(Others have already commented that A320 wasn't the first commercial airliner with FBW; Concorde had it much earlier. As for your understanding of FBW, it's basically correct. Sometimes, strain gauges rather than potentiometers are used as control stick sensors: force as the primary input is generally better than displacement).


Do any airlines hire "pilots" with no previous flying experience?

Lufthansa does. They actually prefer people they can train themselves, so they never learned things which Lufthansa considers bad practice.

This becomes impossible if the airline grows quickly. Therefore, all the new carriers (Etihad or Vueling, for example) need to rely on hiring certified pilots.

See Lufthansa-Pilot.DE (only in German but speaking German is a requirement anyway).

Thanks, Danny, for the link. Lufthansa has now adopted English as their corporate language, so I wonder how firm the German language requirement still is.


Do wheels continue spinning when gear retracted?

They continue spinning but there is a simple friction mechanism that immediately stops them. You can see how it works in this video at 10:50.


Why would the front edge of an aileron fold outward?

That is an enclosure for a counterweight, either made from steel or lead to balance the aileron and/or reduce control flutter in various flight regimes. The extension provides an additional lever arm to alter the moment of inertia about the aileron’s axis of rotation.  These are usually added or refined during flight testing to remove undesirable flutter or other qualities inherent in the design.  Counterweights are usually installed at the factory with the airplane but custom made counterweights can be used on a specific aircraft to provide a specific feel to the controls to meet customer requirements.  Many high performance experimental category acro aircraft do this on aircraft custom built for a master aerobatic flyer.

The comment above about this providing an aerodynamic counterbalance is incorrect.  Such devices for this purpose do exist but in the form or one or more ‘shovels’ or ‘spades’ on the underside of the control surface.


What is the purpose of the translucent tube and dial on JU 52 engine nacelle?

This is the Fuel Gauge.

Direkt auf der Triebwerksgondel sind bei der Ju 52/3m die Treibstoffanzeigen montiert
The fuel guage is mounted directly on the engine pylons on the Ju 52/3m.
AustrianWings

It is suggested that the indicator gives a reading in hundreds of liters (Liter x 100 written underneath).

Source
Visible on the illustration below as Kraftstoffuhr ('Fuel Clock').


How may one notify the FAA of the apparent flaw in the airspace design at KEGE?

From the JO 7400.11C, page (ii)

  Request for Information.  For further information, contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
  Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC  20591; telephone: (202)
  267-8783.

They will likely connect you with the specific airspace coordinator for the region of interest.


Have any aircraft ever been attacked by chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons? Information security compromises?

What immediately comes to mind is the Lockheed XF-90, an early US jet fighter, which had a very strong and heavy airframe. For that reason, the second prototype (of only two ever built) was subjected in 1952 to three nuclear bomb tests in the Nevada desert (not in flight, however. It was sitting on the ground).

At this time, an unguided nuclear-armed air-to-air missile, the Douglas AIR-2 Genie, was developed and tested once in 1957. Several USAF officers were standing below the test spot, but no aircraft were used as targets. The missile was fired by an F-89 Scorpion and could be carried by the F-101, the F-104 and the F-106.

The purpose of the AIR-2 was to attack tight formations of Tupolev Tu-4 bombers in the days before guided SAM missiles were available.

I am sure the Russians had their own score of nuclear tests on aircraft, but I do not know anything specific.


What is this air-scoop behind the cockpit of the Polikarpov I-153 and Stearman?

(Source)

The F1 air-scoop / airbox is well clear of the driver's head to feed air into the engine (the airbox itself is shaped so that each cylinder gets equal share of air).

In your 3-view diagram, that's a streamlined headrest for drag reduction.

The I-153 has a top speed of 444 km/h (243 knots, 280 mph), whereas such streamlining is not needed for the leisurely paced Tiger Moth, for example.

Googling photographs makes it clear, unlike that line drawing.

(Source) Click to view.


What are the security measures preventing someone from chartering a 747 and using it to commit a terrorist attack?

I haven't spoken to any terrorists, so the only source I have for this is Bruce Schneier, but apparently, they're hard to pull off. Objectively, this makes sense; if they were easy, there would be more of them.

For the sake of not referencing any actual living or dead person, let's call our supposed terrorist "Hans Gruber". Hans has enough money to charter a 747 and the desire to terrorize someone. How does he go about it?

If he charters the plane himself, takes control of it, and then crashes it into something (the Nakatomi tower, perhaps), and succeeds, then he dies. Surprisingly, I don't know of many people who are (a) willing to commit terror, (b) willing to personally die for their cause, and (c) multimillionaires.
Okay, what if Hans puts up the money but hires someone else to fly?  Well, money comes from somewhere and charter operators tend to remember you when your passenger hijacks and crashes your 747. Suddenly now you have the authorities after you. Plus, there's no guarantee that the person you hired is going to get the job done.
Okay, but what if Hans is the president of a group of shell companies that can funnel money here and there and disguise the source? Sorry, no good there either. The more people who know about your plan, the more likely the NSA knows about it. At some point (and I would guess that point is not very large) more people in the know results in diminishing returns.
Okay, but what about an opponent who has lots of money, enough willing people to pull off the plan, resources to get them in place and provide the proper training, all while disguising the source? A vast conspiracy? Well, yes, those exist. They're called nations, and other nations go to war with them over things like that. But at that point, it's not really terrorism anymore, is it?


What are the benefits of using Krueger Flaps?

There are different types of Krueger flaps used, with increased efficiency coming at the cost of increased complexity.

The simple ones are basically flat panels that folds out from the wing lower surface into a very steep, deployed position and seals against the wing leading edge; though these are extremely simple, they don't offer much in the way of stall protection.
The next type has large folding 'bull' nose that offers increased performance at the cost of slightly increased complexity. This type of flaps is used in B727, B737, and inboard of B747, as shown in the figure below:

By Arpingstone - Photographed by Adrian Pingstone in August 2002 and released to the public domain., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=118310

The most complex type of Krueger flaps are the variable camber type, which has a flexible panel (which forms a slot at the trailing edge) and a bull nose. This provides a better $C_{L_{max}}$ performance compared to a slat, but gives poorer takeoff L/D performance compared to the slat. However, the main problem is that the mechanism is exceptionally complex, as can be seen in the figure below. As a result not many aircraft use these.

Image from aviation.stackexchange

This means that simpler Krueger flaps are used in the inboard with slats in the outboard region, so that the flow remains attached in the outboard regions at higher angles of attack compared to the inboard region.


Is a high alpha sideslip possible and safe?

You would be risking your life.  Cross controlled approaches should only be done well above stall speed and only after testing at a higher altitude.  Increasing AOA will slow your plane down.  If you recognize being high early in the pattern, you might be better off going ABOVE Vbg and slip, which makes the plane glide much less efficiently.  Spoilers act in a similar manner.

Do a proper approach and use your flaps/spoilers.  If it is allowed, forward slip to increase rate of descent at your preferred approach speed.  If you can't make the runway GO AROUND.  Changing speeds on short final will make judging the landing much more difficult.

In an emergency landing it is far better to over shoot the field and roll into fence, trees, etc at 10-20 mph than to risk losing control of the plane.

As a side note, only deltas come close to 30 degrees AOA before stalling, and these tend to drop like a rock when slipped if their vortex lift is sufficiently disturbed.  Slats and flaps will significantly increase stall AOA, but at the expense of much more drag.

Generally a bad idea.


I've been denied VFR clearance through C airspace, what should I do?

If I'm flying along in my C-152 and I am trying to go in a straight line through the "center" of C airspace, but the controller tells me to remain clear, what should I do?

Well, the obvious answer is remain clear of the Class C airspace :-)

HOW you remain clear is entirely up to you - you can go over, under, or around - you just can't go through, and I think that's the more interesting part of your question.

Flying around the class C airspace is usually a safe choice (don't skim along the margins though - give it some reasonable breathing room), but as you've noted it could add a lot of time/fuel. You need to balance that with the time/fuel required to climb above the airspace, or the risks of flying under the airspace (mainly obstacles) to make your decision.

I'm going to use my local class C airspace as an example for an exercise in aeronautical decision making because conveniently there's a VOR you could hypothetically be circling while talking to approach, and an airport on the other side you might want to get to.

In our hypothetical example let's say you're circling Deer Park VOR (A) at 2500 feet, and you want to cut through the Class C airspace to get to Brookhaven (B), but approach isn't cooperating.

Click to embiggen.

I've got three options sketched out here - think about them, then hover over the spoiler boxes for my thinking on each of the three routes:

The dashed line through the center (the route you were hoping Approach would give you).

   A straight line is the shortest distance between two points, but this straight line stinks: Since Approach wouldn't let you go through the class C airspace you're going to have to spiral-climb to 4200 feet or higher (5500 feet if you're playing by the hemispheric rule), and then when you get to the cut-out in the class C on the other side you're going to have to dive down to get to pattern altitude.
That doesn't seem safe, nor efficient to me, so let's toss that idea out the window.

The northern route under the class C airspace.

   Simple enough, we'll split the difference between the ground (roughly sea level) and the floor of the airspace (1500 feet) and fly under the shelf at 1250 feet. Plenty of room above and below (if your altimeter is set right and you're any kind of decent pilot).
 So this is the part where I confess that I'm a big ol' wuss and don't like to be close to the ground. It's like a porcupine, but with radio towers for quills (like the one I marked with a big OUCH - at 1250 feet there'd be less than 500 feet between my landing gear and the top of that tower).
 I'm not happy with the obstacle clearance on this route (and while I could certainly rearrange the line a bit to avoid the obstacles I'm not going to because they serve my purpose) -- the northern route is out.

The southern route under the class C airspace.

   Same idea as the northern route - descend to 1250 feet and fly under the shelf, but I like this route a whole lot better.
 There are really great landmarks here ("Fly southeast toward the looped road, then go to the middle of the bay and stay between the two shore lines until you pass the bridge at Smith Point. At that point you'll see the airport off your left wing and can maneuver to enter the pattern.")
 You're also over water, and we don't tend to have any radio towers sticking up out of the bay.
 You'll need to watch out for traffic from Bayport, students practicing ground-reference maneuvers, and banner-tow planes in the summer, but that's just your basic everyday VFR "See and Avoid" situation.
 This is probably the route I'd pick.


The concept of ATC is based on primary radar targets, secondary radar targets and radio communication being used to determine the position of aircraft and establish separation.

The concept of stealth aircraft is to reduce production of primary radar targets and being able to turn off transponders to disable secondary radar targets being visible. Stealth aircraft also do not communicate on frequencies during tactical missions, they are designed and meant to reduce radio emission to enable the stealth features.

If they are not on a tactical mission and stealth is not required, they will simply turn on their transponders and communicate with ATC on the required frequencies.


Is it easier to take off against the wind or with it?

Almost always into the wind. The ground roll will be substantially decreased because you've already got a certain amount of airflow over the wings.

Taking off with a tailwind is pretty much never advisable unless it's a one-way strip or runway, or the winds are below the tailwind limitations for that aircraft type.


Is this scaling of aircraft size and power (at least roughly...) correct?

For a first order of magnitude check your result looks good.

Experience tells that the mass scales not quite with the length cubed, so an exponent between 2.3 and 2.6 gives better results. Wing area goes up with the square of the length increase, so your wing loading will become
$$\frac{m_{large}}{A_{large}} = \frac{m_{small}^{2.4}}{A_{small}^2} = 1,176\cdot\frac{m_{small}}{A_{small}}$$
This requires 8.44% higher speeds. To achieve them, thrust must go up with the square of the speed increase and power with its cube, since power is thrust times speed. Therefore, the power increases by a factor of 3.375 if the mass scales with the exponent 2.4. Power loading will now be
$$\frac{P_{large}}{A_{large}} = \frac{3.375\cdot P_{small}}{A_{small}^2} = 1,5\cdot\frac{P_{small}}{A_{small}}$$


Where can I find accurate information about fuel efficiency of Airbus vs. Boeing planes?

Fuel consumption is a very important issue, and much besides the airplane or engine manufacturer influences the final result. Both Airbus and Boeing publish only marketing numbers, and require a non-disclosure agreement before they reveal any meaningful figures.

Approximately three quarters of the progress in fuel consumption in the last fifty years has been achieved with better engines, and the airframe and better operational procedures contributed only the remaining quarter. If there is any difference between contemporary Airbus and Boeing planes, it is very small, and any advantage is usually reversed with the next upgrade or new model from either company.

Here is a related question: Atlantic fuel burn estimations. It has links to tools for fuel burn calculations.

For a first approximation, use 55 to 65 g of fuel per Newton-hour or 15 to 18 g per kN of thrust per second with modern jet engines. Please do not use the static thrust at sea level, but the actual thrust at the right flight Mach number and altitude. If you lack this figure: A modern airliner needs thrust equivalent to between 1/18th (5.6%) and 1/12th (8.3%) of its weight. In cruise flight at Mach 0.82 the higher number of 8.3% should be used.

Things which have an influence on fuel consumption:

Flight speed. Usually flying a little slower helps, but normal operations are already quite close to the optimum. See here for a related question.
Flight altitude. Flying as high as thrust allows helps, but is not always possible. See here for a related question.
Operating mass. Lighter aircraft can fly higher and have less drag. Excessive reserve fuel rules cause fuel burn to go up.
Flight path. Usually the direct route is best, but sometimes gains can be made by avoiding a headwind en route.
Proper piloting. Flying with a small amount of sideslip already destroys any advantage winglets might have, and drag goes up quickly with sideslip. This is mostly an issue for propeller airplanes, though.
Maintenance status of the engines. Engines lose a few percent of efficiency over their operating life.
Maintenance status of the airframe. Dirty wings or badly fitting doors produce more drag, and condensed water in the belly adds some additional weight which increases fuel burn. Condensed moisture can accumulate in the fuselage, and airliners in Africa can well have a few tons of condensed water onboard.

This is why in real life the fuel burn varies, so any published figures out of context are hard to verify.


What is the purpose of the plush-like seat covers in an airliner cockpit?

Check out this related question

And this forum topic.

They help prevent wear and tear on the seat fabric underneath and are fairly easy to replace. In a lot of GA planes they are installed to hide old tired seats underneath. But mostly they are just really really comfortable. They breathe in warm weather and help insulate in cold. All around a good fabric choice for the application (see related question for notes on fire prevention).


What do they use to de-ice aircraft and runways on snowy days?

What is used to de-ice a commercial aircraft?

De-icing fluids are used which are made of ethylene glycol (EG) or propylene glycol (PG) in addition to other ingredients.

What is used to de-ice a runway at a large airport?

Airports use different types of materials, e.g. potassium acetate. Safegrip ECO2 is a brand which is popular.

Runways can also be deiced using normal techniques like salt and snowplows etc.

Do the two fluids effect each other at all? Meaning, when an aircraft drips de-icing fluid onto the runway, does it cause any interactions or problems?

I do not think that there is much or any damage to a runway from the de-icing fluid. If something is bad for solid concrete, how it can be good for fragile aluminium?

Research shows that the residuals left on the airplanes cause some issues. Those are described below.

Effect of runway de-icing fluid residuals on airplanes

There are some studies that show the runway fluid having some adverse effects when combined with de-icing fluid residuals on airplanes. They state:

  Runway deicing fluids contain potassium acetateor potassium
  formate-based fluids (deionizing salts). When these fluids combine,
  the separation of the anti-icing fluid thickeners may be enhanced,
  leading to a more rapid formation of the residue.

Effect of airplane de-icing fluid residuals on airplanes

However, de-icing fluid residuals on airplanes can freeze and cause damages to flight controls. More information is here.


How do fighter pilots manage food, drink & toilet?

Life Strapped to the Rocket

Food and Drink

Fighter pilots do not have any problem taking food and drinks on flights.  The biggest concern is to prevent foreign object damage (FOD) from items like crumbs, bottles, bags, etc.  Otherwise, there are plenty of places to carry food to eat: your helmet bag, G-Suit pockets and flight suit pockets.  I typically carry water with me in my g-suit pocket, and don't worry about food unless its going to be a long flight.  Thankfully, training missions are rarely long enough that they require food in the cockpit, and it mostly just applies to deployments.  Typical food usually includes protein bars, chocolate, cereal bars, etc.  We try to avoid small loose foods like peanuts and M&M's because they could easily spill and FOD the cockpit.

Depending on cockpit altitude, the mask can be easily removed to either eat or drink.  However, fighter cockpits are only partially pressurized, and, in the Super Hornet, there are times when cockpit altitude can be as high as 20,000ft.  Sound judgement is required before removing your mask.

Edit: I've also seen guys incorporate camelpacks into their harness/vests as well.

Restroom

Obviously life on board a fighter jet is cramped, and there isn't a lot of room to move your body, much less use the restroom.  In addition to water, on every flight I carry an item called a pittle pack.  As its been stated, its a plastic bag with powder in it that reacts to urine.  The powder and urine mixture then turns to a jelly that helps prevent spillage, and the entire bag then rolls down and seals on itself.

Pittle packs present 2 major problems (three for carrier pilots):

First: Where the hell do I put this bag of urine? There isn't a lot of storage space on fighter aircraft and nobody wants to put a bag of urine in their g-suit pocket or helmet bag.  Sometimes you can get away with placing the bags in the flight publication pockets, but you better be sure it doesn't fall out.  The last thing you want is for the bag to fall, break, and then to smear about the cockpit as you continue with your mission.

Second: How do I get my junk out of this rocket powered chastity belt? My harness is strapped tightly 8 ways to the ejection seat, which is also cinched tightly to my g-suit.  My g-suit has an opening for my crotch, but its tightly zipped into position over my flight suit.  My flight suit has a zipper, but as stated, the zipper is covered by the g-suit.  And just to add one last layer of difficultly to this impenetrable force field, I've got to dig myself out from between the folds of my boxer briefs.  Success! I've managed to free myself only to discover that the tip of my business end is only barely protruding from this labyrinth of zippers and belts (size may not matter in the bedroom, but it sure as hell matters right now).  The next question you have to ask yourself is, do I have enough time to keep digging, or do I need to attempt to arc it into the bag?  Choose wisely.

Third (The carrier pilot):  Boom, OK three-wire trap!  Ah , the Naval Aviator.  I drop bombs, piss in bags, and then return home to land on a boat.  I'm pretty much a boss... and I'm covered in piss because I didn't secure my pittle pack before trapping on the boat.  The bag, upon catching the three-wire, like a boss, rocketed across the cockpit and smashed against the bulkhead, exploding all over my legs.  Always remember to secure your pittle packs before trapping on the boat, because even if your buddies didn't see it happen, you can guarantee the ground crew will tell them all about it.

Our female counterparts are forced to wear depends, I don't envy them at all.  Brave souls.

Oh, and if its not pee, RIP.


The MH 24 airfoil has been popular for years at international radio-control pylon racing events.  Just ensure that your chord and airspeed give you a Reynolds number exceeding 400,000.

Because airfoils designed for high speed often work poorly at low speed, consider equipping your model with flaps, to make landing easier.

At lower Reynolds numbers, the Eppler E220 has a good reputation.  It's also easier to build (more tolerant of inaccuracies) than airfoils in the mostly-laminar-flow MH series.


What vertical speed at touchdown makes a 'perfect' landing?

I would argue that the way to think of the perfect landing is not in terms of vertical speed but rather in terms of the G-forces involved.

Thinking in terms of G-force, the perfect force depends on what you're landing on and how long it is. The various conditions I can think of offhand are:

long dry runway, no wind or straight down the runway -- try for a greaser if you want, although arguably a greaser is not the safest landing.
cross wind -- the higher the xwind the more you want a firm touchdown.
short runway -- firm so you will have effective braking.
wet runway -- firm, especially if the runway has standing water. The two times that I blew tires on landing was when there was standing water and I didn't plant it firmly enough. In the first case the tires blew before I used the brakes. It was an F27 and one of our pilots was in back at a window seat. He said the two right wheels never rotated at all. I had touched down with a greaser on a puddle.
carrier -- I once checked out a Navy carrier pilot in a 182. It was really hard for him to flare for a landing, since they don't do that. As I remember, he said that they wanted a 4G landing impact.


Why do ELT panel switches have batteries in them?

The battery in the remote switch like the ACK 406 ELTs powers the LED in the remote (the ACK ELT has a separate battery for its alarm buzzer).  On some ELTs the remote's battery may also power the alarm buzzer (the one that warns you the ELT is broadcasting in case you missed the red LED) that you install near the remote (my old AmeriKing 406, now a desk paperweight on account of AmeriKing's TSO certification fiasco, had the same remote that ACK uses and it appeared to power the both the LED in the remote and the little alarm buzzer, because the alarm was wired directly into the remote with no other apparent source of power).
Some units like the ARTEX ME406 don't have a battery for the remote switch (the ARTEX unit's buzzer has its own battery), and on those units you have to either connect a remote switch power source wire to the airplane's electrical system, or if in a no-electrics airplane, you have to cobble together a separate battery power supply to power the remote's LED.
I couldn't find an engineering specification with the information, but I dimly recall that all this is because the ELT's internal battery can't have a potential load device, like a light or speaker (buzzer) connected, that could drain the internal battery if the external light/buzzer shorts out, so they require their own power sources.


What follow-up actions, if any, does the FAA take when a pilot declares an emergency in flight?

I don't know the FAA policy, but normally, you don't report deviations from the regs, unless asked to.  I have declared emergencies, gotten priority handing in the DCA area, and a variety of eyebrow raising events over the years.  However, the FAA has never asked me to submit a written report. Once or twice, I have gotten a call from an operations inspector, and answered their questions, and that was all that became of it.

In general, if you had a bad day, don't tell about it. Just get on the ground safely, and be polite to people, and hope that you don't have any further review.  Of course, you must comply with NTSB 830, but if you are required to do that, you have had a really bad day, and might want to get some help (aviation attorney).