Does a LSA or better license count for drone use?

No, it does not. But because you are an "existing pilot", the application process is a little different:
FAA: Becoming a (Drone) Pilot

Existing Pilots – What to Expect
Eligibility:

Must hold a pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61
Must have completed a flight review within the previous 24 months

Remote Pilot Certificate Requirements

Must be easily accessible by the remote pilot during all UAS operations
Valid for 2 years – certificate holders must pass either a recurrent online training course OR recurrent knowledge test every two years

Application Process:

Complete the online training course "Part 107 small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) ALC-451" available on the FAA FAASTeam website – initial training course areas include:
a. Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation
b. Effects of weather on small unmanned aircraft performance
c. Small unmanned aircraft loading and performance
d. Emergency procedures
e. Crew resource management
f. Determining the performance of small unmanned aircraft
g. Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures

Complete FAA Form 8710-13 (FAA Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application for a remote pilot certificate)
a. Online or by paper (see instructions in previous section)

Validate applicant identity
a. Contact a FSDO, an FAA-designated pilot examiner (DPE), an airman certification representative (ACR), or an FAA-certificated flight instructor (CFI) to make an appointment.
b. Present the completed FAA Form 8710-13 along with the online course completion certificate or knowledge test report (as applicable) and proof of a current flight review.
c. The completed FAA Form 8710-13 application will be signed by the applicant after the FSDO, DPE, ACR, or CFI examines the applicant's photo identification and verifies the applicant's identity.
   - The identification presented must include a photograph of the applicant, the applicant's signature, and the applicant's actual residential address (if different from the mailing address). This information may be presented in more than one form of identification.
   - Acceptable methods of identification include, but are not limited to U.S. drivers' licenses, government identification cards, passports, and military identification cards (see AC 61-65 Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors)
d. The FAA representative will then sign the application.

An appropriate FSDO representative, a DPE, or an ACR will issue the applicant a temporary airman certificate (a CFI is not authorized to issue a temporary certificate; they can process applications for applicants who do not want a temporary certificate).

A permanent remote pilot certificate will be sent via mail once all other FAA-internal processing is complete.


How do wing tip vortices interact with the airflow on an wing with winglets?

Winglets do not change the laws of physics. In particular, they do not change the flow around a wing such that there is no up- or downwash. All they do is to involve a little more air into the creation of lift such that the vortex strength is slightly reduced.

With winglets, wingtip vortices now form at the tip of the winglet instead of at the wingtip. The wake behind the wing still rolls up and creates the usual wake vortices into which the wingtip vortices are absorbed. In order to create the same lift with a slightly less powerful vortex, the distance between both vortices is increased slightly. Actually, in order to support the winglet's weight, the aircraft needs to create slightly more lift with winglets than without, which reduces their benefit.


Why are the power and drag curves called polars?

It is an historical name.

The first polars were drawn by Otto Lilienthal in polar coordinates.

Here (sorry, German link) we find an example:


Can an F-16 land on an aircraft carrier, at all?

The hook is for emergency use at airports that have Runway Arrestor Systems.  Lots of non-naval fighters have arrestor hooks for that purpose.

Now, there is nothing stopping someone from landing an F-16 or any other fighter on a carrier deck and using its arrestor system, which works the same way.  The main issues are the proficiency required to do it and the ability of the airframe to take it.

A carrier landing isn't really a landing; you more or less descend into the ocean and the deck gets in the way.  So the airplane needs a pilot trained to do that sort of thing, and an airframe that can do it repeatedly, that is, land with a descent rate of >500 fpm, a "hard landing" for a normal airplane, without developing cracks here and there and everywhere after a few dozen times.

No doubt that in theory, you could take a carrier qualified pilot, check him/her out in the F-16, and that pilot could shoot traps onto a deck with the F-16 using the hook (launching it is another matter in the absence of catapult link).  But they wouldn't be able to do a lot of them before the airframe would be toast.


What are the differences between EASA (UK) and CASA flight training?

I'm an Australian PPL pilot but know some people who have gone through the UK system. Terminology differences aside, the training pathways are pretty comparable. If you choose to train in Australia you can convert your licence to the UK fairly easily by passing a flight test.

The main differences are:

In Australia you need to do 7 CPL exams and then 7 ATPL exams. Once you start each set of 7 you have 2 years to complete the remaining 6. You can self-study if you wish. In the UK there are 14 exams of each (but I think you only must do the ATPLs and CPLs are optional). You must complete all 14 within 18 months and self-study is not an option, you must attend a formal ground school.
Australia does not offer a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence, but still require a Multi-Crew Cooperation Course be completed before the ATPL.
A lot more schools in the UK are tied to an airline, greatly increasing your chances of immediate airline employment, if that is your goal. Not to say that's impossible in Australia but it only happens to a few dozen pilots per year who secure an airline cadetship.
Training in Australia will cost about $120,000 all up. In the UK seems to be about 120,000 pounds!

There are a lot more little differences but ultimately no matter where you train you will come out with an ICAO compliant licence. If you have specific questions you can either edit this one or head to chat.


Can a DPE do a checkride in any plane of the same class?

FAA Order 8900.2B (General Aviation Designee Handbook) sets out the policy on Designated Pilot Examiners (DPE).
Verbiage from Chapter 7, Section 1 states:

Additional Qualifications. DPE applicants must be technically qualified and must hold all pertinent category, class, and type ratings for each aircraft for which designation is sought. All DPEs must meet the requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61, §§ 61.56 and 61.57, as appropriate.

And from para. 1. f (2) (a) of that section:

(2)    Meet all eligibility and experience requirements for the specific designation sought.
(a)    A designee applicant must have logged at least 5 hours as PIC in each make and model of multiengine airplane and helicopter in which that designee conducts tests.

In specific response to your question (using the guidance shown above in FAA Order 8900.2), it appears that as long as the DPE has been given the FAA authority/Designation to conduct the type of check you are requesting (i.e., Instrument Rating) he/she should be able to do it.
However, some DPE's are only authorized (by the FAA) to conduct Private Pilot examinations, others have additional authority such as Private Pilot/Commercial Pilot/Instrument, etc.
You should pose your question to the DPE directly for confirmation.


Are the IMU velocities equivalent to the GPS ground velocity, except for the coordinate reference system?

An IMU uses gyro and accelerometer measurements to calculate its velocity vector relative to the Earth.   Similarly, a GPS uses range, range-rate, doppler, and/or carrier phase shift measurements to several satellites to calculate the same velocity vector.  So, an IMU and a GPS calculate the same velocity vector, but use different measurements.

The difference between the IMU and GPS measurements are that, inherently, an IMU has very good short-term accuracy but drifts over longer periods of time;  a GPS has very good long-term accuracy, but is very noisy over short periods of time. Therefore, IMU and GPS measurements are usually combined to provide a navigation solution that is accurate over both the short-term and the long-term.

The components of the velocity vector are usually given in a local-level, local-north reference frame; for example, the north- east, and down components: $v_N$, $v_E$, $v_D$. The ground speed is $v_H=\sqrt{v^2_N+v^2_E}$.


Is there any way to tell the difference between MD-80 models?

For Delta, it's either an MD-88, or an MD-82 reconfigured as an MD-88. The differences between the 81/82/83/88 are engine, fuel, and flight deck options. MD-87 is visually shorter than the others.


Is there a way to find what types of aircraft have landed at an airport?

Speaking for the US, airports only report total movements (landings/takeoffs) and this information is available to the public via the FAA. This information is in aggregate and does not contain the type of aircraft.

Flightaware tracks only the type of aircrafts that land and takeoff at an airport; it also tracks the identifier used. It has very good coverage globally, although some areas have better (more accurate) information than others.

For most GA flights, the identifier is sometimes also the tail number, which can then be used to narrow down on a specific airframe.

Just add the ICAO identifier for your aerodome at the end of this URL: http://flightaware.com/live/airport/ to see stats of a particular aiport; for your airport its http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KCSG


What exactly was the American WW2 smokebomb used in naval warfare?

The ocean is featureless, floating smoke bombs were used to mark a spot on a body of water so pilots could get back to the same spot. Smoke plumes can be seen from a long distance, they also let you gauge wind direction and speed.

Smoke bombs were often used when attacking submarines, if a pilot spotted a periscope or caught a sub on the surface before it dove he could drop a smoke marker on the spot before coming around to drop a depth bomb on it. Smoke bombs were also used to mark people in the water, for instance downed pilots or sailors, so they could be rescued.


Is it currently feasible to glide airliners from cruise level to ILS glideslope (CDO)?

Yes it is feasible, in fact it is no problem at all for an aircraft to perform a Continuous Descent Approach (CDA). The difficulty is that Air Traffic Control (ATC) can not predict accurately how the progress of the aircraft will be during the CDA, so they will need to add extra spacing from other aircraft to ensure safe separation. This reduces the capacity of the airport. Therefore CDA's are only used when there is no need for high runway throughput.

For example, Amsterdam airport uses CDA's from Top of Descent during the night hours and in the early morning. Around 6.30 AM local time they can no longer offer CDA's without risking separation conflicts with other aircraft as traffic start to increase rapidly around that time. They will need to vector and put aircraft on doglegs to ensure separation minima are honoured.


Why do airlines park their planes out in the middle and ferry passengers to the terminal by bus, even during non-peak hours?

An airport will have a menu of charges for the services it provides to airlines.

Here is one Schedule of Charges for London Heathrow, for some of these services. Probably you can find further examples via their Conditions of use page.

Some of these charges are unavoidable - landing fees, for example - but others will be subject to agreement.

An airline can save money by opting for a cheaper option in certain cases.

If you've ever watched successive plane-loads of Ryanair customers climb out of their 737s into horizontal rain to trudge across 100m-wide puddles to the terminal, and each subsequent shipment of shivering human cargo queue at the steps as the wind whips the standing water up to knee-level, while every other airline during the same period uses a bus to deliver its passengers, you'll have had a very visible indication of they way airlines can choose to pay for particular services - or not.


Does electrical usage contribute to fuel consumption?

Short answer

In flight, unless you use external energy sources like the Sun, each change in the use of electricity leads to a proportional change in the quantity of fuel burnt in the engines (or in the APU).

On an aircraft, generators only convert fuel potential chemical energy into something else, usually electricity, hydraulic energy or pneumatic energy.

There is no other source of energy:

The batteries themselves need to be charged, charging burns fuel.
The RAT (ram air turbine) uses energy from the relative wind created by the engines thrust. If the RAT is used because the engines and the APU are down, the relative wind is due to the loss of altitude created by the gravity. This kinetic energy is the restitution of the potential energy accumulated during the climb with the engines, so with fuel.

Details

Maximum power of the electrical equipment

The electrical power needs of the whole aircraft can be completely met by a single engine generator, or by the APU. On the A320 family, the APU is an APS3200 delivering about 90 kVA.

APU fuel consumption

From this PPRuNE discussion, an A320 APU may consume 130 kg per hour on the ground, and 51 kg per hour at FL300. However the APU provides at the same time electricity and bleed air energy.

APU fuel consumption for electrical energy generation

However the fuel quantity used for the sole electricity generation may be approximated:

Maximum power required by the aircraft equipment → 90 kVA AC.
Assuming a mean cos φ = 0.8 → Apparent power = 110 kW DC.
Assuming 25% efficiency for the system (gas turbine + generator) → Fuel power required 440 kW.
Fuel energy required → 440 kWh per hour.
Converting to joules (1 MJ = 0.28 kWh) → 440 kWh ≈ 1,570 MJ.
Kerosene specific energy = 43 MJ/kg → Fuel quantity burnt in an hour = 1,570 / 43 = 36 kg (45 L)

So approximately 36 kg of fuel are required per hour to provide for electric energy on an A320.

Note that in flight all engines generators will be active and will share the total demand (feeding different buses for safety), and the APU will likely be inactive. The fuel consumption should be more or less the same, regardless of the number and nature of the active generators. An inactive or unloaded engine generator can be seen as not impacting the fuel consumption for practical purposes.

Engines burning the maximum rate of fuel

Engines have a maximal power. When the engines are already at full thrust, increasing the electric load will divert an additional amount of energy to the generator. This quantity being removed from the energy usable for aircraft propulsion, the aircraft will slow down.

(Updated, taking into account the multiple helpful comments -- Thanks!)

Bonus

Breathing increases fuel use too:

Each time a passenger breathes, they reject heat and CO2 which must be evacuated out of the aircraft.
Some quantity of air must be replaced by new air by the conditioning system.
This system uses pneumatic or electric energy, and again fuel must be burnt to create this energy.


If the updated MCAS software needs two AOA sensors, doesn't that introduce a new single point of failure?

Noting that the details of the MCAS update are yet to be publicly confirmed by Boeing - no I don't believe you are missing anything.

MCAS was meant to be a system that only kicked in when the pilots were letting the situation get out of hand. It was to aid in stall prevention, but does not do anything the pilots can't (as long as their situational awareness would allow). In a million flights MCAS would not be used once unless there were other serious difficulties at play.

In such a system it is much better to have a false negative than a false positive. A false negative means that the aircraft doesn't change anything, and continues to follow the pilot commands. A false positive means... well, it looks like there are 2 crashes that demonstrate what happens.


Mnemonics to distinguish popular airplane models

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/2742/1084

The easiest thing is looking at the fin for small types! The A320 from Airbus doesn’t have a dorsal fin, the B737 from Boeing has dorsal fin and the vertical- and horizontal stabilizer reaches to the far end of the fuselage.

The big ones are generally easy because the B747, A380, A340 and MD11 are distinguished by the number of engines and the hump (B747) for the half, full (A380) or none upper deck (A340).

The A350 is similar to the B787, but it helps that A350 wears a “black mask” around the cockpit. Therefore the A350 looks like Räuber Hotzenplotz or Zoro or whatever you prefer in your part of the world.

The landing gear is barley visible and different and swapable engine types are also difficult. The nose of Airbus planes is more round, while a nose from Boeing is usually more pointy.

For me the problematic ones are the A330 which is shorter than A350 and B777 which is longer. But there are also the B757 (small body) and B767 (wide body). For this ones you need probably take a close look and it helps if a different type is next to them, to get an impression of relative sizes.

A350 - Callsign Bandit?


What is the function of the Apache's Strap Pack?

Picture above is from Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control by Ray Prouty, and shows the fully articulated rotor such as installed in the Apache. The Fully Articulated term means that the blades can rotate in three Degrees of Freedom: fwd/aft, up/down, and nose up/down. The rotation axes are single points of failure: when they break the blade is launched, unbalancing the rotor and rendering flying and autorotation impossible.

The problem with the Apache setup is with eight nuts degrading due to corrosion, as from this link:

  The order came after officials learned that bad weather and salt water in coastal regions could lead the eight “strap pack nuts” on each of the rotary blades to reach the end of their life expectancy sooner than projected.

Fully articulated hubs are the most common design in helicopters, the others being the teetering rotor such as in the Bell 212 and the hingeless rotor in for instance the Westland Lynx.


Does a Boeing 747-830 exist and if it does, is there any difference to a 747-8 (748)

Until 2016 Boeing included customer codes into the aircraft model names. Your example 747-830 decodes as follows:

747: This is the general aircraft series.
-8: The 747-8 variant (in this case, a 747-8I, where I is for Intercontinental, the passenger variant).
30: The customer code for Lufthansa or Condor Flugdienst (see e.g. Wikipedia for a list of customer codes).

So this makes it a Boeing 747-8 produced for Lufthansa (Condor does not have one).
The term B748 is the ICAO code for the 747-8.


The plane in your question is the Saab 37.

According to x-plane.org about this plane—

  Emergency power is supplied by a ram air turbine just before the left wing leading edge, which extends automatically on hydraulic power failure, and just before touch down. (Earlier, it was also always deployed whenever the landing gear was down.)

They cite Air Power Journal, Summer 1993, various issues of FlygvapenNytt and other Swedish air force informational material.

The Swedish Wikipedia also says the same thing—

  On some military aircraft, such as the Saab 37 Viggen, the RAT is used during takeoff and landing for the pilot to be able to maneuver the plane in case of an engine failure at low altitude.


Do emergency services helicopters fly VFR when leaving base?

If the helicopter is operating at an airport, it needs clearance like a regular flight, otherwise it would be a very dangerous situation for the helicopter and any other traffic in the area. Usually the ATC will give priority to the emergency helicopter (as much as possible), so it will leave the area without delay.

Regarding the weather conditions, there are two aspects that need to be considered:

The regulations allow emergency helicopters to fly VFR below VMC minima (this is true in Europe, I have no idea about FAA). So, an emergency helicopter, can continue VFR with visibility down to 1km, or even 800 meters for short periods of time.
If the helicopter is IFR equipped and the pilot(s) IFR rated, it can switch to IFR if necessary. On the way to the accident site this might not be very useful if the weather will not allow safe descent and switch to VFR, but on the way back to the airport/hospital, it can be very useful, provided the landing site has some kind of IFR procedure. Again, ATC will usually offer full cooperation in all this switching of plans and flight rules.


Where can I find climb and cruise performance charts for a specific aircraft?

I don't know much about the Cirrus SR 20 (G3), but here is a manual that has Performance charts in section 5:

[PILOT’S OPERATING HANDBOOK
AND FAA APPROVED
AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL
for the
CIRRUS DESIGN SR20]1

Here is a sample chart:

Hope it helps.


Is it possible to upgrade old Mirage-III and Mirage-V variants with thrust vectoring engines?

Given enough tinkering, it is technically possible. But so many other modifications would be needed - strengthening, wing revisions to maintain the relationship between centers of lift and gravity, trim authority, managing the changes in stability, never mind the engine mounting and avionics refit, etc. etc. that really you would just be cannibalizing an old airframe to make an entirely new plane.
Somebody might conceivably do it as a short-life proof-of-concept prototype, if a new plane were proposed, the Mirage airframe was a good enough match, and a sophisticated digital control system was not necessary for these early tests. But in practice there is nobody in the world with all of the need, the industrial capability, the Mirages and the budget to embark on a new fighter programme that would require such a prototype.
Dassault did experiment with adding separate lift engines in the fuselage, in the Balzac V (which was just such a hacked-about Mirage III airframe) and the Mirage IIIV (which was twice the size), but it all went nowhere.


What are the requirements to obtain the ATP license in Canada?

The requirements for ATP Aeroplane are in CAR 421.34. You can read the details yourself, but in summary:

Be at least 21 years old
Hold a Category 1 medical
Pass 3 written exams
Hold a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane (valid for both day and night flight)
Have 1500hrs total time, of which at least 900 must be in aeroplanes (see the regulation for more details on night, XC and instrument time)
Within the last 12 months, demonstrate instrument flight and emergency procedures in a multi-engined aeroplane


Why did Concorde have a 8000 ft airport elevation limit?

Edit: Concorde can take off and land above 8,000 ft
From October 20-28, 1974, Concorde 02 (F-WTSA) made a tour of the American Pacific coast, visiting London (83 ft), Gander (495 ft), Mexico City (7,316 ft), San Francisco (13 ft), Anchorage (151 ft), Los Angeles (125 ft), Lima (112 ft), Bogotá (8,710 ft), Caracas (236 ft), Las Palmas (78 ft) and Paris (392 ft).

http://www.concordesst.com/history/70s.html

El Dorado International Airport - BOG (Bogotá) has an elevation of 8,710 ft (2,648 m), which puts in 710 feet above the limit of the 8,000 ft maximum altitude. Both runways are 12,467 ft (3,800 m), so capable of handling a take-off.
In addition, Air France flew Concorde twice weekly to Mexico City's Benito Juárez International Airport - MEX (Elevation AMSL 7,316 ft / 2,230 m) via Washington, DC, or New York City, from September 1978 to November 1982.http://www.concordesst.com/history/70s.html
This shows that Concorde was able to schedule regular service to an airport 684 ft lower than the 8,000 ft maximum altitude and visit an airport above 8,000 ft.
I am not sure the 8,000 ft is a hard maximum elevation. It could be for a fully loaded plane. I have not seen any chart to show maximum take-off weight at any altitude.


Why does a plane shake while passing through clouds?

In a word, it's called "Turbulence" and in cloud, it is caused by differing air density.

Sciencey bit: The sun warms the earth and causes the air to rise. As warm air rises, it cools at the wet adiabatic lapse rate. Inside of a cloud, this rate is much slower than outside of it. Clouds are more dense than dry air, and the water vapour inside a cloud is not spread out evenly. Combined with the thermal turbulence (the movement of warm air) and the lower wet adiabatic lapse rate (rate of cooling) results in drafts of air through the cloud.

The result to the aircraft is pockets of more and less lift on the wings in somewhat unpredictable patterns. You feel this inside the aircraft as bumpiness and occasional feelings of rising or dropping. Sometimes this can be quite pronounced - this is why you will almost certainly be asked to remain seated with seatbelts fastened.

Very occasionally, outside of clouds, there can be more unpredicatable turbulence which may come as a surprise to the Pilot. This type of turbulence can cause injuries - usually from falling luggage or persons. This is why, even during cruise, the cabin crew and pilot usually suggest you keep your belt on while seated.

In almost no case does any kind of turbulence cause any damage to the aircraft or significantly affect its airworthiness.

Another answer here might be interesting reading for you How dangerous was the turbulence on this commercial flight?
as might What is turbulence, and how does it happen?


What is the relationship between the terms "airprox" and "near mid-air collision"?

A Near Mid Air Collision (NMAC) is an Aircraft Proximity (AIRPROX), but an AIRPROX is not necessarily an NMAC. NMAC is used by the FAA (see 7-6-3 in the AIM), while AIRPROX is used by ICAO.

NMAC is empirically defined as coming within "100 feet vertically and 500 feet horizontally" of the other aircraft, whereas AIRPROX is categorized from A to D. The A to D categories are not empirically defined.

  A - Risk of collision.
  B - Safety not assured.
  C - No risk of collision.
  D - Risk not determined.

References:

AIRPROX (skybrary.aero)
NMAC (skybrary.aero)


Why do trijets (3 rear engines) usually have a T-tail instead of a normal tail?

A T-tail is not so bad. Its main advantages are:

A smaller vertical tail is required, because the horizontal tail acts like an endplate and enhances the efficiency of the vertical tail.
When the vertical tail is swept, a T-tail will allow to make the horizontal tail smaller as well, because it gains additional lever arm in this configuration.
By designing the junction with the vertical well, the T-tail has less interference drag. It also helps to reduce wave drag, especially when using a well designed Küchemann body (the round, long, spiky thing on the tail junction of a Tu-154) by stretching the structure lengthwise.

As soon as the cruise Mach number demanded tail sweep, the T-tail became the preferred solution. Placing the engines at the rear fuselage put them higher, so FOD became less of a worry, and the wing could be kept clean for maximum lift resulting in shorter runway requirements. In the days before CFD, it was much easier to get the wing right when no pylons with barrels at their ends were sticking from it.

If an engine is mounted near the place where normally the horizontal tail would be, it is much easier to relocate the horizontal to the top of the vertical than trying to join both together. The mass of the engines will require a relatively rearward wing position, so the lever arm of a conventional tail would be rather small. By shifting it up to the top of the swept vertical tail, its lever arm is much larger, making the T-tail especially attractive for configurations with rear-mounted jet engines.

A second reason is better failure tolerance. Note that the T-tail designs are from the early jet age. Their first flight years were: Caravelle 1955, Jet Star 1957 (both not real T-tails, I know, and having little tail sweep), Trident 1962, VC-10 1962, Ilyushin 62 1963, Boeing 727 1963, Tu-134 1963, C-141 1963, Hansa Jet 1964, Tu-154 1968. The designers were afraid an engine failure would also damage the horizontal tail and would turn a survivable accident into a lethal disaster.


About F-35 hover/ roll posts responsiveness

The pilot controls have no direct connection to the attitudes (like roll) in hover mode.

Instead the throttle and stick is used to tell the computer if you want to go up, down, forward, back, left or right.

So for example pushing stick to left by some degree tell the computer to move left with a certain speed, the computer will handle all the roll for that. So pilot controls sideways speed, not roll.

Btw. this is probable relevant to your question: How does the F-35's roll posts work, and how does its engine turn down 90 degrees?


Why was the F-14 retired 15 years ago while the contemporary F-15 is still operational?

There aren't enough F-22s to go around. Too expensive.
The F-18C/D Hornet that replaced the F-14 has itself been mostly replaced by the F-18E/F Super Hornet. The look the same, but the E/F is actually larger and more advanced. Not really the same aircraft.
Maintenance. Facilities on a carrier are restricted, simply due to space. If they can reduce the number of airframes to support on a ship, and still accomplish the mission, good.
Lack of mission for the AIM-54, which was the primary reason for the F-14.


What aircraft has a single constant orange light?

From your description it sounds more like the International Space Station than an aircraft. That looks like a small orange or yellow light because it's the reflection of the sunlight For that reason you're most likely to see it in the hour or two after sunset, and it's clearly visible with the naked eye in good visibility. It's much higher than aircraft and takes about 90 seconds to travel horizon to horizon. Obviously you won't hear it or see anything on aircraft tracking sites.

That said, ymb1 suggested looking at this ISS tracker site. Assuming your 2120 was in British Summer Time (UTC+1), the ISS would have been somewhere over the South Pacific Ocean at that time, which would rule it out.


For a Part 61 IFR rating, how much can be done alone on a simulator?

The short answer: It depends.  Either 10, 20 or 30 hours of simulator/FTD/ATD time may be used, but all of it must be with an approved instructor.  None of it may be solo.

None of the requirements you posted are related to simulator time.

  50 hours of Pilot in Command cross country

This can be done solo, as you are a rated pilot and thus PIC.  This need not be solo XC and can be done with a passenger or CFI.

  40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time

In this quote, simulated instrument time refers to time spent in the airplane during flight in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) that you are wearing a view-limiting device to simulate IMC.  While wearing a view-limiting device you must be accompanied by another pilot who acts as your safety pilot.  Thus, none of this time may be accomplished solo.  You will always need another pilot either in simulated or actual instrument conditions.

  15 hours of flight instruction towards Instrument Rating

This time may overlap with the above (actually, must overlap), the regulation reads (14 CFR 61.65 (d)(2)):

  (2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating...

Now back to your question, what about simulator time?  For this we look further down to 14 CFR 61.65 (h) and (i)

  (h) Use of flight simulators or flight training devices. If the instrument time was provided by an authorized instructor in a flight simulator or flight training device—

  (1) A maximum of 30 hours may be performed in that flight simulator or flight training device if the instrument time was completed in accordance with part 142 of this chapter; or

  (2) A maximum of 20 hours may be performed in that flight simulator or flight training device if the instrument time was not completed in accordance with part 142 of this chapter.

and

  (i) Use of an aviation training device. A maximum of 10 hours of instrument time received in an aviation training device may be credited for the instrument time requirements of this section if—

  (1) The device is approved and authorized by the FAA;

  (2) An authorized instructor provides the instrument time in the device;

  (3) No more than 10 hours of instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device was credited for the instrument time requirements of this section;

  (4) A view-limiting device was worn by the applicant when logging instrument time in the device; and

  (5) The FAA approved the instrument training and instrument tasks performed in the device.

The use of simulators and flight training devices is covered by (h) above, and the limit of 20 or 30 hours depends on how the training is conducted.  In either case, note that time must be "provided by an authorized instructor".  Section (i) deals with lesser training devices that are limited to 10 hours but is also required to be conducted by an authorized instructor.

Reprising the short answer, any time spent in a simulator, flight training device or aviation training device where you are solo or without an authorized instructor does not count toward anything.  Sim time is only valid when conducted by an authorized instructor.


What are the legal effects of an inoperative anti-collision light?

The answer to your question is in FAR 91.205:

91.205(b) - Visual-flight rules (day):

  (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.

and 91.205(c) - Visual-flight rules (night):

  (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft.  (it goes on to talk about color, which I've cut out) In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.

So as you surmised in your question, a 1967 Cherokee is required to have an operating anti-collision light for Night-VFR operations (because the night anti-collision requirement is retroactive and doesn't care about certification date), but not for day Day-VFR operations (because it was certificated prior to 1996).

If you HAVE an anti-collision light it is required to be operating subject to FAR 91.213. The relevant part of that regulation says that you can take off with inoperative equipment provided that equipment is not:

  (i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated

You're OK for Day VFR because CAR3 (and FAR 23 prior to 1996) didn't require an anti-collision light for daytime operations.

  (ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;

Your Cherokee predates the concept of a Kinds of Operations Equipment List in small aircraft by several decades, so your reference is 91.205.

  (iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted;

If the kind of flight is "Day VFR" the anti-collision light is not required by 91.205, but if you want to fly at night it is required (as we determined previously from 91.205).

  (iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive

No such Airworthiness Directive exists for anti-collision lights on the PA-28 family.

…so per 91.213 you can placard the beacon switch INOP and "deactivate" the anti-collision light (simply putting a bit of masking tape on the switch holding it in the off position & writing INOP on that is generally considered adequate) and fly in Day-VFR conditions (ideally to an airport where you can get a replacement lamp for your beacon).

Note that the fact that your beacon was optional equipment doesn't enter into the decision tree for 91.213: Any installed equipment gets evaluated according to this regulation. As an example my (1965) Cherokee has both a tail beacon (originally installed by Piper) and a belly strobe (added by someone over the years): if either is inoperative it needs to be "deactivated and placarded" appropriately.


Are exoskeleton wings technically possible?

Yes, and it has been done.
In 2010, the first human-powered ornithopter recorded its first flight.

It took a very light aircraft and a lot of power from the pilot, about 650 W, so the flight only lasted 20 seconds. It only sustained level flight, requiring assistance to take off.

To put this into perspective, a good power target for cyclists is 250 W. A top competitor will put out 300 W over a race and 400 W over 10-15 minutes, and over 1000 W for 10-20 seconds. So it's possible (not certain) that a top Tour de France cyclist could hold it in the air for a couple minutes, or even have the stamina for a takeoff. But it's still more power than any human can sustain long enough to cover a mile.

Meanwhile, the record for propeller-driven human powered aircraft, without flapping wings, currently holds at 115 km. This was achieved with autonomous launch.

The ornithopter in question isn't exactly an "exoskeleton", though, because an exoskeleton is not optimal for the job. Human arms are unsuitable for flying or sustaining high power output in general, so all successful human-powered aircraft derive power from the pilot's legs. Typically it's a cycling motion, but a straight leg press machine motion is used in this particular case.


Why do I hear airplanes' engine sounds in the sky?

20 km is not that far for an airliner. At the speeds they move over ground, even in approach phase where they move slower than in cruise, they are few minutes from landing or after taking off.

Depending on prevailing winds, the airport might be using an approach path or another. That means some days you'll see airliners overflying you non-stop, while other days you might not see a single aircraft.


As far as I can find you may both be correct. The term originally was used to describe a stock aircraft having it's wings shortened after-market.
Here is a reproduction of the December, 1970 issue of SPORT AVIATION Magazine article comparing stock vs clipped
http://home.xcountry.tv/~dann/id72.htm

This modification has become well known and the clipped wing design sought after that there are planes (at least kits) being manufactured with "clipped" wings.
http://www.monocoupe.com/

It appears that whether is was done 'aftermarket' or manufactured that way, clipped wings are those that have been shortened from original design to improve aerobatic capabilities.

Hopefully that will give you some more points to debate over!

~Hoff


At what altitude did Concorde go supersonic?

Concorde went supersonic during its climb phase to the cruising altitude.

The altitude at which the Concorde can go supersonic was limited by the regulations. For example, the aircraft was only allowed to go at 400 knots during the climb phase between 6,000 and 32,000 ft; also, the aircraft was allowed to go supersonic only after it has crossed the coastline.

As the air gets thinner during climb, the Mach number increases for same IAS, reaching around 0.93 at 25,000 ft and 0.95 at 28,000 ft. After this, the afterburners are engaged and autopilot is set to the cruising altitude (~ 60,000 ft). During this climb phase to the cruising altitude, the aircraft goes supersonic, settling at around Mach 2 at over 50,000 ft.

The flight envelope limitations of Concorde (at one configuration) is shown in this image:

Source: pprune.org

The altitude affected the thrust requirements, as more thrust is required for the same speed at lower altitudes due to density. This is one of the reasons for Concorde flying at altitude far above that of subsonic airliners.


Why can the aircraft not turn on pitot heaters itself?

There's much simpler and safer logic. Most modern Western transport aircraft automatically switch the pitot heaters on when in flight mode or at least one engine is running. Pilots can manually force pitot heat on, but there's no direct option to switch them off. Normal procedure is to leave it in auto.

Boeings since the 757/767 are automatic (exception: 737), and Airbus has had it automatic since at least the A300-600. ERJ is auto, not sure about the CRJ200, but the 700 is auto.

Pitot heat indication systems are already required by certification standards. 14 CFR 25.1326:

  If a flight instrument pitot heating system is installed, an indication system must be provided to indicate to the flight crew when that pitot heating system is not operating. The indication system must comply with the following requirements:

  (a) The indication provided must incorporate an amber light that is in clear view of a flight crewmember.

  (b) The indication provided must be designed to alert the flight crew if either of the following conditions exist:

    (1) The pitot heating system is switched “off”.

    (2) The pitot heating system is switched “on” and any pitot tube heating element is inoperative.

EASA CS 25.1326 is basically identical.

The Antonov 148 is certified to EASA CS-25, so it must have had such a warning system.


How does the fan in the jet engine suck in air while the engine is stationary?

The answer in all cases is the fan accelerates air, creating a low-pressure area, and more air moves in to fill the low pressure.

Consider a ceiling fan.  As it runs, the air in the disk of the fan is accelerated downwards.  This means that the space where that air used to be is now at lower pressure, since some of the air has been removed from it. Air below the fan is moving downwards, away from the fan, so it's difficult for it to fill the low-pressure zone. So the air that moves in will come from the top and the sides.

If you put the fan inside a tube (a duct), the air can't come in from the sides, so it must come from above.  You now have something conceptually similar to a vertically mounted jet engine, except that it's much simpler (actual jet engines have multiple fans) and it's powered by a little electric motor, rather than by injecting and burning fuel.

If you want a pump, the fan doesn't care if you put in a false ceiling that divides the space above the fan from the space below it, with the duct and the fan as the only connection between the two.  Since no air can get into the area above the fan, the fan will pump the air out of that zone.  Eventually, the pressure in above the fan will get so low that air the fan is accelerating downwards will start to flow back up into the evacuated zone.  This is why any particular fan will only lower the pressure by a certain amount.


Where can I take my ultralight aircraft?

Taken from a more specific answer by @Pondlife to a question about ultralights and National Parks:

  For ultralights specifically, the regulations are in 14 CFR 103 which has only a few very simple restrictions on where ultralights can operate. 103.15 says you can't operate over a congested area or a crowd of people and other restrictions are the obvious ones: don't fly near airports without ATC approval, don't enter restricted airspace, and do follow NOTAMs.


Categories of aircraft (A,B,C,D): Is it possible for an airplane to move into a different category?

The FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook, Chapter 4 has a good explanation of this (emphasis mine):

  An airplane is certified in only one approach category, and although a
  faster approach may require higher category minimums to be used, an
  airplane cannot be flown to the minimums of a slower approach
  category. The certified approach category is permanent and independent
  of the changing conditions of day-to-day operations.

And:

  A pilot must use the minima corresponding to the category determined
  during certification or higher. Helicopters may use Category A minima.
  If it is necessary to operate at a speed in excess of the upper limit
  of the speed range for an aircraft’s category, the minimums for the
  higher category must be used. For example, an airplane that fits into
  Category B, but is circling to land at a speed of 145 knots, must use
  the approach Category D minimums. As an additional example, a Category
  A aircraft that is operating at 130 knots on a straight-in approach
  must use the approach Category C minimums.

In other words, the aircraft's "certified approach category" never changes. However, for operational reasons a pilot may use a higher category's minimums for an approach, but never a lower category's. One possible scenario would be if the flaps are inoperative and the pilot can't slow the aircraft to its normal approach speed.


Why is the static margin expressed as percentage of the MAC?

The static margin is the distance between the center of gravity and the neutral point. By itself, this is a dimensional value. This makes it hard to compare between aircraft, so it makes sense to divide it by some other length. That the mean aerodynamic chord has been chosen has several reasons:

The MAC is the reference length for all parameters of longitudinal motion.
The wing's pitching moment scales with the MAC.
The wing's pitch damping changes with the square of the MAC. The biggest contribution to pitch damping, however, is the lever arm of the horizontal tail.

Normally, the tail lever arm is also chosen as a multiple of MAC. A higher wing chord means more tail force is needed in order to set the correct angle of attack. If you compare different airplanes, you will notice that the relative size of the horizontal tail goes down with a higher wing aspect ratio. While GA airplanes have horizontal tails sized to between 20% and 25% of their wing surface, gliders have horizontal tails of around 10% to 15%. It must be said, however, that gliders need less flexibility in their cg location, which is another reason for reducing horizontal tail size.

If all linear dimensions are referenced to MAC and all areas referenced to the wing area, calculations become easier and similarities between different aircraft become obvious.

For lateral motion parameters the usual reference length is the semispan or the span of the wing.


How to properly compute the stable vertical path load factor

Let's look at the extreme case of a 90° pitch attitude. The airplane climbs vertically. Thankfully, in case of an F-16 without loads this is possible (left side of sketch below).

The vertical load factor is defined in the body axis system (blue arrows): $n_z$ is the multiple of gravitational acceleration that presses the pilot into his seat. With $\Theta$ = 90° no gravitational acceleration along the body z axis is left (red arrow), all acts along the body x axis. So here $n_z$ is zero and $n_x$ is -1. Gravitational acceleration presses the pilot into his backrest, but his behind is unloaded.
Since the cosine is 1 for 0° and 0 for 90°, it describes the variation in $n_z$ over pitch. For 180° the cosine becomes -1 and the pilot will hang in his shoulder straps. And so on. The right side of the sketch shows an intermediate case and it should be immediately clear that the component of g in z direction is sin(45°) = 1/√2.
Combine this with the change in $n_z$ for a turn and the formulas
$$n_x = -\frac{sin\Theta}{cos\phi}$$
$$n_z = \frac{cos\Theta}{cos\phi}$$
should make sense. Since the x axis is defined as positive in flight direction, the x component of the load factor is negative with positive pitch attitude, hence the sign of the equation for $n_x$.


Do helicopter rotor blades speed up and down during the rotation?

A helicopter rotor usually has flapping hinges, which lifts the blade up when travelling forward and down when travelling backwards. The blade being at an angle indeed causes a change in effective moment of inertia: it would want to speed up when at an incline, and this would indeed cause a bending or warping moment were it not for..

..the Drag Hinge or lead/lag hinge. The image is from this site which contains an explanation on other rotor heads as well.


Can BOTH instrument rated pilot under the hood and safety pilot log PIC time in IFR flight?

I believe the key to this scenario is in the FAA Counsel Office's interpretation to Speranza (2009)

Quoting from the FAA's interpretation letter:

  The FAA has previously stated that there is a distinction between logging PIC time and acting as a PIC. See Herman Interpretation. To act as a PIC (i.e., the pilot who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight), a pilot must be properly rated in the aircraft and be properly rated and authorized to conduct the flight. In your example of an IFR flight, being properly rated and authorized would include having an instrument rating. Accordingly, only Pilot A may act as the PIC, and Pilot A has final authority and responsibility for the safety of the flight regardless of who is manipulating the controls.

They also clarify the circumstances under which Pilot B may log PIC time for this flight, and what that means for Pilot B logging PIC time:

  Accordingly, Pilot B may log PIC time for the portion of the flight during which Pilot B was the sole manipulator of the controls.
  . . .
  However, Pilot A may not log PIC time for the portion of the flight during which Pilot B is the sole manipulator ofthe controls, and is logging PIC time, because there is no provision for this logging in §61.51(e). Section 61.51(e)(1)(iii) allows the pilot acting as PIC to log PIC time only if more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted, and only one pilot is required for the flight in your example. Although Pilot B properly may log PIC time for a portion of the flight as discussed previously, Pilot B could not act as PIC and was not a required flight crewmember for any portion of the flight under the aircraft's type certificate or the regulations under which the flight was conducted.

(Emphasis mine in both quotations.)

So, because the flight is conducted under instrument flight rules you must hold an instrument rating (be "properly rated and authorized" to conduct the flight) in order to act as PIC and log PIC time on that basis, regardless of the weather conditions (VMC/IMC) under which the flight is conducted.

A key difference between your case and the one in the interpretation is that both of your pilots have instrument ratings. Since the safety pilot in your example holds an instrument rating they are rated for the aircraft and authorized to conduct a flight under Instrument Flight Rules, therefore they can act as PIC, and would be eligible to log PIC time for this flight (as a required crewmember under FAR 91.109).

This would, as best I can tell, revert to the same logging situation as a safety pilot under VFR: For any portion of the flight in which the safety pilot is also manipulating the flight controls the pilot under the hood would be unable to log PIC time, and for any portion of the flight where "Pilot A" is not under the hood they safety pilot would (generally) be unable to log PIC time.


Cabin crew : how do they get Oxygen in the event of decompression?

There are usually extra oxygen masks in the cabin- it is a regulatory requirement. From 14 CFR 25.1447 - Equipment standards for oxygen dispensing units:

(c) If certification for operation above 25,000 feet is requested, there must be oxygen dispensing equipment meeting the following requirements:
(1) ... There must be ... at least two oxygen dispensing units connected to oxygen terminals in each lavatory. The total number of dispensing units and outlets in the cabin must exceed the number of seats by at least 10 percent. The extra units must be as uniformly distributed throughout the cabin as practicable.

So the cabin crew can use the nearest unused oxygen masks. Also, each flight attendant position has a portable oxygen system, which can be used in case of emergency (though it is intended usually for therapeutic purposes). in addition, there is also the Protective Breathing Equipment in the cabin. Though these two are not intended for normal use during decompression, I guess it can be used in case of an emergency.


Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?

If no, why not?

While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.

Solar radiance is approx. 1kW/m^2. A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area. Solar cells are approximately 20% effective.

If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best. At night, it would be close to zero extra power.

Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy. 20kW is 20kJ/s. For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.

Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity. That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.

12kg of fuel. That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten. In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.

Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh. I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care. It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.

In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel. And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...


ATC interruptions, when is it okay/overlooked?

Since you have not stated any jurisdiction in your question, I am basing this answer on the EU, which is what I am familiar with. Rules in many other parts of the world are going to be similar if not nearly identical.
Regulation EU 376/2014 lays down rules on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation. On the list of Mandatory Reporting you will find:

(v)   communication-related occurrences;

which I think, among the possible categories, would be the best fit for the kind of event you describe. However, it is not detailed further what is encompassed by this category, so whether something like what you describe falls under mandatory reporting, I don't know for sure. In theory, rules were violated (unrelated chatter on the radio is, quite simply, not allowed). In practise, it doesn't sound like any harm was done.
In any case, there is also Voluntary Reporting, which is designed to capture

(a)  details of occurrences that may not be captured by the mandatory reporting system;
(b)  other safety-related information which is perceived by the reporter as an actual or potential hazard to aviation safety.

The rules concerning reporting can be quite difficult to comprehend; my general advice (and what I have learned at school) is: if in doubt, file a report. If you feel the safe environment was in any way compromised, you should report it. Remember, the aim of a report is not to appoint blame, but rather to improve safety. I know from experience that it might be difficult to report something done by someone you know, since it might feel like you are pointing fingers or ratting someone out, but the truth is that the reason aviation is so safe, is because the people who work with aviation takes safety seriously, and reports violations.
As for whether the controller is going to report your situation, I doubt it - they is the one who initiated in the first place after all. But again, if you feel safety was violated, please write a report. Your writing today may save lives tomorrow.


Do landing strips suffer from landing wheel tire tracks?

It does indeed degrade performance, and runways (and their lights) have to be routinely cleaned of rubber. The FAA specifies safe friction levels.

Wikipedia has this to say:

  The build up of rubber affects the level of friction of the runway, most noticeably as a reduction in braking and ground handling performance. This can lead to incidents such as runway overrun or a lateral slide off the runway.

Some runways are particularly poor:


Has the number of angle of attack sensors been reduced in Boeing 737 Max, in comparison to the older models?

There is already an answer on here about how many the B737 MAX have (the answer is 2), and I've found this Airworthiness Directives which states somewhere far down:

  Do a general visual inspection of the left and right angle of attack (AOA) sensor as applicable, to determine if a certain AOA sensor with a paddle type vane is installed[...]

This brings me to the conclusion that there always have been 2 AOA sensors on the B737, as this Airworthiness Directive is dated to 2012. (To be fair, at least since then there have always been 2 AOA sensors).

As a decrease in the amount of AOA sensors from 1967 to 2012 seems unlikely to me, I'd say there are and always have been only 2 sensors on the B737. Following that train of thoughts, the amount of sensors has thus not changed with the different versions of the B737

Interesting sidenote: The AD is valid not only for B737 but also affects all kinds of 727 and 747 models, which indicates that they also have 2 sensors only, but doesn't necessarily mean that other Boeing aircraft have more!


Are planes allowed to fly in circles, and is there a minimum legal altitude for takeoff and landing?

Most likely there’s a flight school at the nearby airport and they are conducting dual instruction flights over your neighborhood to practice ground reference maneuvers and possibly emergency procedures.  This is perfectly normal and safe.
In the United States, the following requirements for minimum safe altitudes are set for general aviation flight per 14 CFR §91.119:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

So unless these guys are dropping below 500 ft AGL, they’re not doing anything unusual.


What are ARTCC, RCO and FSS and what are differences?

ARTCC or Air Route Traffic Control Center:

Does control traffic, generally in larger areas and above FL180 (Class A airspace)
Will broadcast some weather info and provide advisories

  ARTCCs broadcast a Severe Weather Forecast Alert (AWW), Convective
  SIGMET, SIGMET, or CWA alert once on all frequencies, except
  emergency, when any part of the area described is within 150 miles of
  the airspace under their jurisdiction

RCO or Remote Communication Outlets:

Extends the range of FSS broadcasting ability
Many are being shut down

  The remaining RCOs are of two types: 1,223 RCOs that allow pilots to
  contact flight service and receive transmissions over a common
  frequency; and 398 RCOs over which pilots can transmit—usually on
  122.1 MHz—and monitor flight service’s response on the frequency of a co-located VOR.

FSS or Flight Service Stations:

  Flight Service Stations (FSS) are air traffic facilities that
  communicate directly with pilots to conduct preflight briefings,
  flight plan processing, inflight advisory services, search and rescue
  initiation, and assistance to aircraft in emergencies. FSS also relay
  Air Traffic Control clearances, process Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) and
  provide updates on aviation meteorological and aeronautical
  information.

Provides inflight weather, preflight planning and clearances and takes NOTAMS. Does not control traffic in the air but is involved in dispatching instructions (clearances) prior to takeoff.

Offering weather is a bit tricky. Controllers and those on the other end of the radio all have access to different levels of weather information and weather radar. Many will provide some level of information if asked. What they will provide is perhaps worthy of its own question here.


Is altitude information included in filed flight plan?

The flight plan contains the requested cruise flight level, as well as step climbs or level changes along the route in the route field.

Example 1:

(Image Source: skybrary.aero)

Example 2:

  SAM UN621 BASIK/N0412F330 UZ150 BADUR/N0426F340 UN472 ARE/N0424F350 UN864 PIMOS

Fxxx being the requested flight level.


Are overwing exits still useable if the flaps can’t be lowered?

The 737 doesn't have any special procedure for such a case. It would be the Captain's decision to use or not use the overwing exits. Factors such as the usability of other exits, the nature of the emergency, and the number of people on the aircraft would enter into the decision.


What's the precise meaning of "landing south (north, east, west)" in STARs?

"Landing south" means the planes are facing south as they land. Depending on conditions, they could come from the opposite end of the runway, and would be "landing north." This is also referred to as "south flow/operations."

If you look at a chart for the IVANE FIVE shown below, you can see why this is important. The runways at KCLT are primarly oriented north/south. The aircraft will enter the approach at MAJIC from the northeast. If landing south, the arriving airplane will fly IVANE BABZE HEELZ and needs to be at 6000 feet when they reach HEELZ north of the airport. Approach control will then turn them south to land. If landing north, they will fly from IVANE to GIZMO and follow the approach down to the south, and don't have to be at 6000 until they get down to ESENE. After reaching JATAB approach turns them north to land.

Telling the pilots which direction they will be landing lets them know which route to follow on the approach and helps them plan their descent. If approach hasn't provided a runway yet, they can also know which runways they can plan for.

Source. This is the best I could find for the IVANE arrival. The MAJIC ONE isn't RNAV, the CHSLY THREE would seem to be the applicable RNAV procedure from the northeast.


Would it be more effective to increase the length or chord of a rotor blade for better performance?

It's not so easy. The blade length, chord and engine power are connected in complex ways, and for each desired performance there is an optimal combination of those parameters.

Rotors (and wings) generate lift by accelerating air downwards. The lift is proportional to the rate of change of inertia of the air. This, however, also changes kinetic energy of the air and therefore requires power. This is called induced drag.

Since inertia is proportional to velocity, but kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, it is more efficient to accelerate a larger amount of air to a lower speed.

The amount of air affected is proportional to the area of the rotor disk (the whole area in which the blades move) and that is simply ($\pi\times$) square of blade length. So in a sense the answer is easy: only blade length has effect, blade chord does not.

However, increasing the blade length also increases the form and skin drag of the blades, so beyond some point the form drag will exceed the induced drag and any additional increase in blade length won't improve efficiency further.

Even more importantly, a longer blade will be heavier and therefore will have to be stronger to withstand the centrifugal force when turning, and stiffer so it does not bend too much when not. But that will make it even heavier and you'll reach a point where you simply exceed the capabilities of the material. And of course higher weight also means more lift is required. These effects will further reduce the optimal length of the blades.

The blade chord is then a secondary parameter governed by two concerns: the chord has to be long enough so the blades can generate the necessary lift without stalling and they have to be strong enough, strength being proportional to chord times thickness.

So if you want to improve load, you can try to improve efficiency, which you could do by making the blades longer, but you need to find a material with higher specific strength, otherwise the increased weight will outweigh the improved aerodynamic efficiency.

If you don't have that, you will primarily have to increase power of the engines. The optimal blade length may then be longer too, but you will be hitting the limits of the material quickly; that's why there are multi-rotor helicopters.

If you instead meant speed, that's a completely different issue and neither blade length nor chord play a significant role there. In forward motion, the speed of a helicopter is limited by two constraints: sufficient portion of the retreating blade has to move aft relative to the airflow and the tip of advancing blade must not exceed speed of sound (actually, critical Mach number, which is somewhat lower). The first requirement means the tip speed must be around three times higher than the maximum forward speed, otherwise the retreating side of the rotor won't be able to generate enough lift and the aircraft will roll to that side. Together with the second parameter, it limits the speed to about a quarter of the critical Mach. There are some experimental twin rotor (intermeshing, side-by-side) helicopters that don't mind the lift asymmetry and can fly somewhat faster. But it has nothing to do with blade length; blades of larger rotor spin at lower rpm to maintain similar tip speed.


Is the modelname of a flight management system chosen in accordance with the aircraft it will be used on?

Yes, this is the system used on the Boeing 737. As the document mentions, it is similar to the system design on the Boeing 757 and 767 models.


Is this just a generic B737 or does it have a specific name?

(planespotters.net)

This is the A6-FZZ Dubai Royal Air Wing Boeing 737-8KN(WL). The other 737-800's they have have different liveries, namely cheatlines.


Why would a commercal flight circle while enroute?

As others have noted, this is called a holding pattern, which is used to delay an aircraft while in the air. Of course, this takes time and fuel, so the system works to prevent this from being necessary.

The primary use of holding patterns is by ATC to delay arrivals. This could for traffic reasons, to delay the aircraft until it can join the line of arriving aircraft. It could also be for facility reasons. Bad weather can reduce the rate at which an airport can accept aircraft, meaning some will have to enter a hold. An airport can also be closed for weather, or for another reason, in which case all aircraft must enter a hold, or land at an alternate airport.

Pilots sometimes need to use holding patterns as well. If they have an issue with the plane, they may need time to follow their checklists and diagnose the problem. ATC will give them a place to hold for this time.

Standard arrival procedures generally have holding points published for these cases.  When a holding pattern isn't defined, one can be created. The aircraft will fly for a standard time before turning around, and repeating as necessary.

A better FlightRadar example is perhaps the following image, showing three aircraft in the stack and one leaving it

Source


Why do the engines seem to power down and then back up after take-off?

There are several kinds of power reduction which could happen after takeoff:

Cutback (noise reduction when the airplane is very low, after takeoff)
Climb thrust

Both are set on the CDU (Control Display Unit, the screen and keyboard of the FMC, Flight Management Computer).

Since you describe a temporary and dramatical power decrease, this should be the cutback. When you hear the power increase again, it must be that the setting goes from cutback to climb thrust.

In the B737-800

The cutback option on the CDU

This is the CDU (Control Display Unit), where you set up the cutback. It is in the second page of TAKEOFF REF. Here is the screen before turning cutback ON.

ACCEL HT : This is the height (above ground level) at which we will let the plane accelerate (we will lower the pitch a little bit and gradually retract flaps).
EO ACCEL HT: Same as above, but applies when one engine is not running (Engine Out Accelaration Height). This setting will be used in case of engine failure after takeoff.
REDUCTION: This is the height at which the thrust setting will go from TOGA to CLIMB. We need maximal thrust during takeoff, because it's a critical phase and it's safer. But at the same time, keeping this setting too long decreases the engines lifetime because of the high temperature. It also burns more fuel, it's noisier and less environment-friendly. That's the reason why the airplane won't climb with maximum thrust.

But this question is about cutback. Here is CDU again after turning cutback ON.

CUTBACK N1: This will be the target N1 setting when the REDUCTION height will be reached. The Auto-throttle together with the EEC will arrange for maintaining this lower shaft speed (here you can see it's 84,6%). This will be a lot less noisy but will still provide enough power to climb!
EO ACCEL HT: Same as above
REDUCTION: At this height, cutback will happen and CUTBACK N1 will be the engines target N1 speed.
RESTORE: This is the height at which cutback is no longer needed, and climb thrust N1 setting will be the new N1 target for the engines (92.3% in this example).

Takeoff with cutback

This is the takeoff roll. IAS indicator is not active yet (below 45KIAS). Ground Speed is currently 35kt.
N1 and TO/GA are displayed on the FMA (Flight Mode Annunciator) at the top of the PFD (Primary Flight Display). On the right, you can see on the ED (Engine Display) that the green marker is indicating TO thrust (because of TO/GA mode).

Few seconds after the rotation. You can see at the bottom of the PFD the radio altimeter indicating 300ft AGL. We haven't reached the REDUCTION height, so the cutback is not active yet. The ED still indicates TO thrust and the green markers are just below 100% N1.

Few seconds after reaching REDUCTION height. N1 is active on the FMA. Radio altimeter indicates 960ft AGL, this is above our REDUCTION height, so the cutback should be active and our engines should be a little quieter. A look at the ED and we can see that the green target N1 marker is now indicating 82.6% N1. Our engines are still rotating faster than that (98% N1), and the EEC is currently decreasing the fuel flow arriving to the combustion chambers.

We are now reaching 2500ft AGL. This is below the RESTORE height of 3000ft, so the cutback is still active, as shown by the ED. The green target N1 marker is indicating 83.0% N1 and the current N1 for both engines is also 83.0% N1. In 500ft, the N1 target speed should increase again to climb thrust settings.

We've just reached the RESTORE height (above 3000ft AGL), and we can see the green markers show 92.3%. We are back to the climb thrust settings and our plane is loud again! The flaps are still down, and the pink speed marker on the PFD just moved to the top. We are going to retract the flaps and slats, and accelerate to 250KIAS. It seems that RESTORE height is also the ACCELERATION height when cutback mode has been turned on. [I'm not sure, could a B737 pilot confirm this?]

The flaps are up, our speed is now 250KIAS.

Further readings

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_21/quietclimb_story.html
http://www.flaps2approach.com/journal/2013/6/29/avoiding-confusion-using-the-following-acceleration-height-t.html


Why shouldn't variable pitch propellers be operated at low speed?

The specific reasons may be specific to each propeller/engine combination, but in general it seems to be related to stresses.

According to this King Air POH on page 2-2:

  Stabilized ground operation between 400 and 1,150 propeller RPM is prohibited. Operation between 0 and 400 propeller RPM is permissible only with propeller feathered.

  STABILIZED GROUND OPERATION WITHIN THE PROPELLER RESTRICTED RPM RANGE CAN GENERATE HIGH PROPELLER STRESSES AND RESULT IN PROPELLER FAILURE AND LOSS OF CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT.

This is probably due to the frequency of the aerodynamic forces at those RPM's resonating with the frequency of the propeller, and getting amplified to unsafe stress levels. This is called ground resonance and is also an issue with helicopters. In addition to over-stressing the propeller blades, it can also affect the fatigue life.

There is also a discussion in this thread, and it is mentioned in this guide.

As voretaq7 mentions, fixed-pitch propellers have similar restrictions for similar reasons. Some engines include a damper that removes this restriction by damping out the resonance.


What is the range difference between LEAP and PW1000 powered A320 and A321 NEOs?

According to Airbus
Airbus quote a single range figure of 6300km for the A320neo
This is 100km more than Airbus claim for the A320ceo with sharklets but the difference is probably due to increased fuel capacity in the A320neo and possibly to revised wingtip arrangements.
The difference in range between older A320 (~5700km?) and A320 with sharklets (~6200km) appears to be 500km. This implies the wing sharklets are more important than larger fuel capacity and both these features are more important than engine differences alone.
Superficially at least, the choice of engine does not affect the range claimed by Airbus.

This raises the question, what benefits are provided by the new engine options alone?
The only relevant claim by Airbus appears to be

The A320neo also offers significant environmental performance with nearly 50% reduction in noise footprint compared to previous generation aircraft.

I guess airlines choose between NEO engine options mostly based on commercial factors and maybe on fleet characteristics, maintenance arrangements, etc. Factors other than range.

According to others
Forbes has a comparison beween these two engines which suggests the geared-turbofan arrangement of the PW1000 offers large advantages in both fuel efficiency and noise.


B777- In emergency mechanical back up how does the flight controls manage engine failure

In your scenario there would likely still be hydraulic power and electrical power from the one running engine and the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) generator, which can power everything except the autopilot. The TAC (Thrust Asymmetry Compensation) system would compensate for the asymmetric thrust.


How many active pilots are there in the US? How many are women?

According to the FAA, as of December 31, 2016, there are:

584,361 Active pilots (39,187 are Women pilots, or about 7%)

104,382 Flight Instructors (6,848 are Women Flight Instructors, or about 7%)

The ratio of female instructors to female active pilots is virtually the same as for males.


How are the 747-400 rudder pedals and tillers connected to the nose wheel?

Both steering methods work via a clutch (12) that engages only when the nose wheel is loaded. So in the air, the nose gear won't turn by either input, whether still extended, or retracted.

The pedals' input to the clutch is a pivot, and is therefore more limited, whereas the tiller's (15) interface is cables.

Now based on my understanding:

The pedals move the tiller but not the full range since the cables/clutch/pivot move in that scenario*
If the tiller is held in place, the cables that activate the hydraulic power steering actuators cannot move, and the pedals' input will simply pivot freely (clutch slip)
The tiller overrides the pedals for the same reason in 2.

For completeness, the main body gear steering starts only when the steering input is big thanks to a cool looking cam (29) that pivots the quadrant (23 around 31).

For double completeness, Terry once told me the linked steering is not on a minority of the -1/200 variants, so for those it was either company option, or disabled.

* You can watch it here. Note how the bumps on that takeoff bump the tiller as well.

Sources:

Nose gear steering – Boeing patent (most definitely the 747's judging by the approval date)
Main body gear steering – Boeing patent (definitely the 747's).


Can I get training in the USA with a PPL from another country, but without converting it?

Part 1: Can a foreigner with a PPL in another country's system receive training in the US?

All other normal prerequisites such as ASFP, medicals, etc. aside, yes, a foreign license holder can receive training in the U.S.

Remember: You do not need a pilot certificate to receive training, but you would need one to solo or take a check ride (such as a student certificate).

If a person holds a foreign certificate, I believe they have to be flying an aircraft registered in their home nation in order to qualify to solo or otherwise act as PIC in a foreign country without obtaining a local certificate.

So, receive training?  Sure.  Solo/PIC/check-ride in an N-registered? No.

If what you mean to ask is "can he obtain a new cert/rating without converting".  No because the FAA does not issue South Korean pilot certificates, so that would not be possible.  The dual training received in the U.S. would certainly be able to be logged and count as valid training back home.

Part 2: ASFP Training Categories

From the flightschoolcandidates.gov FAQ section:

  What category do I qualify for?
  Candidates seeking flight training are separated into one of four
  different categories. A brief explanation of the categories follows:

  Category 1 - Candidates who seek flight training in the operation of
  aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) greater
  than 12,500 pounds, but who do not fall into Category 2.

  Category 2 - Candidates who seek flight training in the operation of
  aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) greater
  than 12,500 pounds, and who:

  Are employed by a foreign air carrier that operates under 14 CFR part
  1546; Have unescorted access authority to a secured area of an airport
  under U.S.C 44936(a)(1)(A)(ii),49 CFR 1542.229; Are a flight crew
  member who has successfully completed a criminal history records check
  in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.230; or Hold an airman's certificate
  that is recognized by the FAA or appropriate US military agency, with
  a type rating for a multi-engine aircraft that has a certificated
  takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more.

  Category 3 - Candidates who seek flight training in the operation of
  aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds
  or less for the following training events:

  Single Engine Land (SEL)
  -- Includes initial Airman's Certificate, including a private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. If a private and/or
  commercial license is the candidate's initial FAA license, it is
  considered an initial airman's certificate and is not exempt.
  Instrument Rating (IR) Multi Engine Land (MEL) Each of these training
  events requires a separate training request. Clarification regarding
  Category 3 exemptions is covered in the next Frequently Asked
  Question.

  Category 4 - Candidates who seek recurrent training in the operation
  of aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) greater
  than 12,500 pounds, and are current and qualified on the aircraft for
  which they are requesting training. These training requests are
  submitted by the flight training providers -- Candidates need to
  "Select Providers for Recurrent Training" from the AFSP Candidate
  account. If you have further questions regarding your category, please
  contact your Flight Training Provider.

If he wants training intended for an instrument rating in an aircraft under 12,500 Lbs MTOW then category 3.


Are there any non-bureaucratic hurdles preventing more widespread adoption of synthetic vision?

It's not bureaucracy in the sense of pointless red tape, it's the demands of certification for brand new systems on Transport Category airplanes.  The hoops that have to be jumped through are epic. Engineering standards, testing this, testing that, covering every conceivable possibility (or trying to).

You always see new innovations in GA, then Corporate, then Transport, because that's the certification difficulty ladder imposed by the demands of having to achieve near perfect safety with a better than one in a billion risk of a catastrophic crash due to a component failure.  (Airliners are, by a far, far margin, the safest way to get form A to B aside from an ox cart - there hasn't been a crash of a heavy in the US in, what, almost 20 years now?)


Can a helicopter enter Vortex Ring State In Auto Rotation? [see qualifiers]

To enter VRS you have to have near zero forward airspeed and a descent rate of about 500 fpm or more under power.  Note that VRS is not "settling with power" regardless of what the FAA says - they are two different phenomena.  So in practice you would never encounter the conditions that could create a VRS in the first place while autorotating because you normally autorotate with substantial forward airspeed if you want to be able to land in one piece.

But say if you were autorotating, then slowed to zero airspeed so you were now autorotating straight down (and the descent rate goes from holy crap to oh my god), and then you pulled pitch to arrest the descent rate using rotor inertia. Could a vortex ring state be induced during that brief interval?  Perhaps one could start to form in that brief few seconds of inertia-generated downwash, but by then the rotor would be stalling and you are now an anvil, so the point is moot.

However, for the purposes of our just-for-fun theoretical discussion, I think that if you had enough rotor inertia, it would be possible theoretically I would say, because for the purposes of the time interval involved, it would be the same as having engine power.  Maybe if you had a rotor with super duper uranium tip weights that could generate inertia lift for say 10 seconds or more.

Watch this video to see how fast the vortex ring state can form in a vertical descent with power


Why don't the contrails show the curvature of the Earth?

Some contrails disperse and therefore end up being short to show any curvature.

(contrailscience.com)

Long ones don't stay put because of the wind. They wiggle.

It's for the same reason flying at 30,000 feet the Earth's curvature is not apparent. Earth is huge and it takes higher altitudes for the curvature to become noticeable to our eyes.

(californiacapitalairshow.com)

Flying higher at or above 60,000 feet or so (where the Concorde cruised) the Earth curvature starts to become more noticeable.

To notice it from the ground, you need a very clear day, not the slightest haze on the horizon, calm winds, and the plane to come from the right angle, as the illustration below shows:

(metabunk.org) 5-mile grid at 35,000 feet seen from the surface.
Note that the lines are squashed together the farther they are, so it'll take a very long contrail at a low angle above the horizon (called an altitude in astronomical terms) for that curvature to be easily seen.
RE comments:

The horizontal lines aren't as curved:

That's a property of one-point perspective, you see more depth than breadth.

The contrails are at least a few hundred miles long:

Not when viewed moving side-to-side. Jetliners cruise at around 550 MPH. The grid above shows what 5 miles are like. A 250-mile long contrail would take a plane 30 minutes to draw. You can time the next plane you see for proof on how long it takes to pass side-to-side in your field of vision. A lot less than 30 minutes. Example below is from a time lapse video:

Click image to open the GIF.
The GIF duration is 1.29 seconds and the video is shot at 5-second intervals at 24 fps. The contrail moved right to left in ~2.5 minutes, or roughly 25 miles (5 squares).


Why are the leading edges of the 787's horizontal and vertical stabilizers not painted?

Aircraft stabilizers (both vertical and horizontal) usually have metallic leading edges without paint or anti-erosion paint system. This can be seen in the following figure for Airbus A320 family.

Image from Airbus Structure Training Manual

For aircraft with composite stabilizers, leading edge erosion is arrested by bonding metal to the leading edge, or making the leading edge using metal, as in 787:

  The .. leading edge assembly, ..., with an aluminum edge and a fiberglass and paper-honeycomb skin.

In such cases, (as @Todd points out), the leading edge is usually left unpainted in order to prevent paint erosion. This method is used in the leading edge of the main rotor blades of a number of helicopters. In such cases, either the bare metal is left as is or a protective film is used to combat erosion.


What's a quick way to determine which runway to use?

This might take a few seconds longer, but it's math-free: On your kneeboard, draw a quadrant (like this: +). Draw a line through it for your runway(s). Draw an arrow to represent the wind. The answer will be apparent. Do it enough times, and you'll be able to visualize the drawing without actually doing it.

It's also a great technique for calculating holds.


Why is "Affirm / Negative" used instead of "Yes / No"?

Why do we say "TANGO" on the radio for the letter "T"? Because "T" could get garbled or misunderstood to be "B", "E", "or "V". "NO" could become "oh?", "YES" could become "us", and so on...the possible interpretations and permutations of short, monosyllabic words are many. Use a big word and it will be hard to confuse with others...


NASA's flying telescope SOFIA — How to find flight plans and real time location?

I don't know where to find flight plans, but according to Wikipedia, the aircraft is a Boeing 747SP with registration NASA747.

"747SP" set as aircraft type filter in flightradar24 was enough to find SOPHIA right now :


Why do DC-4 landing performance charts have different values for the intended and alternate destinations?

Runway length = landing distance / 60%

For the DC-4 there are two sets of landing performance charts. The first one is the landing distance. The other one is the minimum effective runway length, for the intended and alternate airports separately.

From a 1982 NTSB safety recommendation:

  The Safety Board recognizes that changes in the landing distance demonstration procedures during certification could result in penalizing the operational specifications of the airplane as they are presently determined using the existing minimum landing distance procedures. For actual line operations on dry runways, a safety margin is currently provided by the operational limitation of 14 CFR 121.195 which requires that the minimum effective runway length be the airplane's landing distance as determined during certification divided by 0.6 (or multiplied by 1.667). The Safety Board's accident investigation experience has not indicated to date that the actual runway lengths used in line operations for dry runways do not afford a proper level of safety. Safety Board recognizes that a change in the aircraft certification criteria specified in 14 CFR 25.101 and 25.125 will necessitate a corresponding review of the operational limitations in 14 CFR 121.195 so that operational specifications are not unjustifiably penalized. Of course, we are not suggesting that current runway length requirements be compromised to the detriment of present levels of safety.

The rules have changed since the DC-4 days. The related regulation I found applies to turbine aircraft, see: 14 CFR 121.195.

The 60% and 70% are an added factor of safety, which as the above text shows, limits the operational capability of the aircraft.

Dividing by 0.7 reduces the effective length required for the alternate compared to the intended stop, my understanding for the shorter runway length is to allow an easier selection of alternate airports, especially when the fuel maybe running low and the nearest airports are not of particularly long lengths.

The effective length charts make it clear that the 0.6 or 0.7 are already accounted for and need not be applied again. They would be manually applied if the crew are using the landing distance charts.

The crew would start by the expected landing gross weight. It will be heavier at the intended stop due to carrying the alternate fuel. Then the pressure altitude, and finally via the reported headwind, the required effective length is known.

Related: How to calculate the DC-4 landing distance with this graph?


What is the purpose of the small wheel at the end of the F-14’s launch bar?

https://siregar3d.com/category/grumman-f-14-wip/page/3/

Above is a 3D modelling of the nose landing gear (NLG) well looking forward. The tiny wheel during retraction would slide forward to aft on the curved guide rail I circled, so the launch bar can be stowed with its tip near the top of the NLG. Otherwise there would be no space for it with it vertical (as the NLG swings forward for retraction).

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason2/f-14d/index.php?Page=3

Above is a real photo. The declassified F-14 manual shows the wheel, but it is unlabeled and unexplained. The above is my proposal. Other carrier-borne fighters of the USN I checked lack this wheel, such as the F/A-18 (shown below).

Like my proposal, the F/A-18 launch bar also slides aft during retraction (YouTube), but instead of the wheel and rail, perhaps it actuates into position.

http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=13836


Why do we need to starve the engine before turning it off?

The reason is the large spinning thing on the front. Residual fuel in the engine has been known to auto-ignite (i.e. combust without a spark), causing the prop to spin, causing serious injuries and deaths. A lean cutoff reduces the risk that someone handling the prop will get maimed or killed.

In a car when you turn the engine off usually it is in park or neutral, so if the engine turns a few revs the car goes nowhere, even if it is in gear the car may lurch but that's generally it. Modern car engines have electronic fuel injection and electric fuel pumps, some modern push-button gasoline engines are stopped by performing a lean cut-off, turning off the injectors before the plugs, most work by just stopping ignition. Diesels don't have spark plugs, they rely on compression alone, so cutting off fuel is the only way to stop them.


Is setting elevator to certain angle equal to trimming the horizontal stabilizer?

Yes, both are equal for small angle changes. Exceptions do apply, especially in transsonic flow.
Both changing the stabilizer incidence and the elevator deflection will change the lift distribution between wing and tail surfaces and will trim the aircraft for a different angle of attack. Changing the incidence gives the empennage a new angle of attack while changing the deflection will change the camber (and with it the zero-lift angle of attack) and the angle of attack of the empennage. For small deflections the effect is the same; however, the change in stabilizer incidence is smaller than the elevator deflection change for the same effect in proportion to the square root of the relative elevator chord.
Say you change the stabilizer nose-down rsp. the elevator trailing edge up. The tail will produce less lift / more downforce and the aircraft pitches up. Now the angle of attack of both the wing and the tail will increase which increases lift on both until the distribution of lift between both is as before - after all, we did not change the position of the center of gravity, and the angle of attack will change until the center of pressure is exactly below or above the center of gravity again. There the aircraft finds a new equilibrium speed and will fly on in its new attitude.
Nevertheless, depending on the initial trim point, the aircraft will now climb or sink because the thrust does not match the new drag at the new trim point. The aircraft will settle at a new vertical speed, too.
Before you think that one of them would be enough: Both are needed because each is a specialist for tasks that the other would handle poorly:

The elevator moves quickly and needs small actuation forces, so it is built for manoeuvring or gust response.
The stabilizer moves slowly but can effect much higher lift changes. It is meant for retrimming during or after changes in configuration. Deflection of the lift devices on the wing will shift the center of pressure backwards, so in order to balance all lift forces, the tail now needs to produce massive downforce, something only the adjustable stabilizer is capable of.

This answer covers these aspects in more detail.


Is the "Bay Tour" flight path documented, or is it a more informal route? Are there similar flight paths for other cities?

There certainly are similar routes - the Niagara Scenic Falls route, given in FAR 93.71 comes to mind.  (FAR 93 has plenty of these, by the way.)

  Comply with the following procedures when conducting flight over the
  area described in paragraph (a) of this section:

  (1) Fly a clockwise pattern;

  (2) Do not proceed north of the Rainbow Bridge;

  (3) Prior to joining the pattern, broadcast flight intentions on
  frequency 122.05 Mhz, giving altitude and position, and monitor the
  frequency while in the pattern;

  (4) Use the Niagara Falls airport altimeter setting. Contact Niagara
  Falls Airport Traffic Control Tower to obtain the current altimeter
  setting, to facilitate the exchange of traffic
  advisories/restrictions, and to reduce the risk of midair collisions
  between aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Falls. If the
  Control Tower is closed, use the appropriate Automatic Terminal
  Information Service (ATIS) Frequency;

  (5) Do not exceed 130 knots;

  (6) Anticipate heavy congestion of VFR traffic at or above 3,500 feet
  MSL; and

  (7) Use caution to avoid high-speed civil and military aircraft
  transiting the area to or from Niagara Falls Airport.


What areas of a commercial airliner are pressurized besides the cabin?

Baggage, yes, landing gear, no.

The fuselage of an airliner is typically "capped" by two bulkheads, the forward and aft pressure bulkheads. These are roughly spherical sections that seal the central "cylinder" of the aircraft's fuselage.

Here's a 787's forward bulkhead:

... and a 767's aft pressure bulkhead:

Practically all the space in the fuselage itself between these two bulkheads is pressurized during high-altitude flight. This includes the baggage compartment.

Gear assemblies, however, are typically not pressurized. For some jets like the 737, this is fairly obvious:

Other designs with full doors for the gear assemblies aren't as obvious, but in general it's neither feasible nor desirable to pressurize the landing gear housings when airborne.


Could a plane land on specialized vehicles if its landing gear failed?

Smaller planes can pull it off, here is video from a weekend airshow somewhere.
http://digg.com/video/plane-lands-on-truck
Bigger planes, that's a lot weight. Even my Cessna Cardinal (4 passenger) could weigh close to 2500 lbs landing, basically a whole nother car on top of a truck.  Maybe a car carrier would be good, longer landing ramp, clear front to fly over if needed.

Jets, that's a lot more speed to match up with.


The ~416 kg is confirmed by multiple sources. The most useful I found[1] uses a comparison:

Product
REE

Mobile phone
0.0005 kg

Air conditioner
0.12 kg

Toyota Prius
15 kg

Lockheed-Martin F-35
416 kg

Navy surface ships
1818 kg

Navy submarines
3636 kg

Based on @MichaelSeifert's input, I've found confirmation for the REE in a Toyota Prius – its curb weight is 1380 kg (toyota.ca):

Each electric Prius motor requires 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of neodymium, and each battery uses 10 to 15 kg (22-33 lb) of lanthanum. That number will nearly double under Toyota's plans to boost the car's fuel economy. (reuters.com; emphasis mine)

If a Toyota Prius is 1.1–2.3% rare earth by mass, then 3% for the F-35 shouldn't be surprising.
Worth noting:

Despite their name, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful in Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million, more abundant than copper. [emphasis mine]

1: Ganguli, Rajive, and Douglas R. Cook. "Rare earths: A review of the landscape." MRS Energy & Sustainability 5 (2018). (PDF)