Is it legal to fly the localizer approach when cleared for the ILS?

The question really boils down to: "ATC clears me to fly an approach.  Is the approach clearance defined by what is on the approach plate, or is it specific to the type of navigation equipment used?"  It turns out that it is based on the approach plate.

The answer is found here:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0504.html
Section 5-4-5.a.3(a)

  More than one navigational system separated by the word “or” indicates
  either type of equipment may be used to execute the final approach
  (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 15).

When the chart is written as in your example, you are cleared for the approach, and you must use one of the approved types of navigational equipment to fly it.  There is no requirement in FAR/AIM to tell approach control which equipment you will be using (beyond the equipment code in your flight plan).

As further corroboration, section 5-4-7.d in the above document specifies that ATC is allowed to clear you for an approach even if the equipment required for some types of navigation systems is not available.  This actually is not that rare because NDB/GPS approaches are still used even if the NDB is not working.

The requirement to notify ATC in the event of navigation radio failure is separate.  Oddly, you don't have to tell ATC if you have a glideslope receiver at all, but you are supposed to tell them if one that you do have breaks.  If it happened while you were actually flying the approach, I would encourage you to execute a missed approach.  But if you just want to fly an ILS/LOC approach as localizer-only for practice, ATC doesn't care and you don't need to tell them.


Why are these steps performed on the A330 emergency electrical checklist?

If we look at the Airbus A330 manual we will see that the RAT (Ram air turbine) can only power the GREEN hydraulic system and when the EDP (Engine driven pump) of the green system is available, the emergency generator is run by the EDP and not the RAT.
The A330 has two levels of emergency electrical configurations. They are:

A fault in the main electrical buses of the aircraft (AC BUS 1 and AC BUS 2). In this case, even if the engines and their generators are running the aircraft electrical system cannot be supplied. In this situation, the green hydraulic system's EDP powers the emergency electrical generator. This is the first level.

The aircraft falls into level two when there is a dual engine failure situation. So, there are no working generators to supply the aircraft electrics. Here, the RAT extends automatically. The RAT then runs the green hydraulic system which in turn runs the emergency generator.

The level one emergency configuration is always better because it provides the aircraft with more power.
When you are coming into land, while the aircraft is in level two emergency electrical configuration (RAT only), once the slats are extended, the emergency generator is automatically disconnected, and the aircraft is purely powered by the batteries. The reason for this is to allocate RAT only for the operation of the hydraulic systems so that the flight control power is prioritized. When you turn on the land recovery push button, the LAND RECOVERY AC BUS and the LAND RECOVERY DC BUS are automatically powered giving the aircraft the necessary electrical needs for the landing. This includes powering of the SFCC 1 (Slat flap control computer). But in the case of RAT powering the aircraft, only the slat channel is recovered. The landing has to be conducted flapless.

When the aircraft is in level one emergency electrical configuration (emergency generator powered by the green EDP), there is no disconnection of the emergency generator even when slats are extended. The reason why it is still required to extend the RAT in this situation is to allow the RAT to assist the green hydraulic system. The green system managing both the emergency generator and the load from the flight control demands can cause the emergency generator to shut off. With the RAT on, the green system thus gets that extra help to prevent an over demand situation. Here also, pushing the land recovery gives one of the SFCC computers. But with the EDP running the show, both the flaps and slats are available for the landing.


Is engine shp directly correlated with its payload capacity?

This is a complicated question, here is a simplified answer.
Generating lift requires setting in motion a large quantity of air, as downwash. More lift requires more downwash, and that requires setting in motion a larger quantity of air- which requires more horsepower applied to the main rotor shaft.
Note however that the rotor blades are designed to generate their optimum lift at a certain design speed and angle of attack, which means that if you add horsepower you would also have to increase the rotor blade span and/or add more blades to absorb and make best use of the additional power- all while maintaining the blade tips subsonic, and not overstressing the blade attach points or the main transmission gears and shafting.
In addition, more power to the main rotor disc means more torque reaction, and you'd need to redesign the tail rotor to counteract that.
All this means that you cannot increase payload by simply increasing the shp of the engine.


At what point does an aircraft become an airliner?

I think there's a misunderstanding here that airliner ("an airplane operated by an airline") is directly derived from airline. While it is a reasonable definition, "airliner" predates airline. (Mirriam Webster: airliner 1908, airline 1910).

An airliner is a portmanteau of air and liner, a liner being any passenger ship plying between ports along regular "lines" (as distinguished from transient ships using those ports). By the early 20th century a liner was generally understood to mean any large, passenger-carrying vessel operating a route between major ports (think Titanic etc.). You'll notice how airliners travel between airports - nautical words and phrases were adopted in the early days of flight.

So an airliner should be

passenger carrying
large
travels between airports, rather than having one fixed point of operation

It's a definition that still fits, and covers any commercial aircraft over a certain size. While there's not a specific point at which an aircraft becomes large enough to be called an airliner, I think it does impart some sense of largeness or capacity that an 'ordinary' plane does not possess.

(You might even say that a better definition of airline is "an air transportation system that operates airliners"!)


What is the cause of the whiny noises in cabin of the Boeing 787?

Other people have complained about this too. Boeing should rename the type to the "Whineliner".

The noise is caused by a hydraulic pump which is situated directly below the cabin. It mostly runs on takeoff and landing, but it can also run automatically at other times.

Dogs have been reported to need psychiatric treatment after being transported on a 787.


What do you do when your engine quits right when the airplane starts off the ground?

The first and perhaps most important thing to do is NOT turn around. Generally speaking you won't have the airspeed/altitude to make a full 180 and return to the field. While it can be done, it's advised to continue forward and put the plane down as you would in any emergency. Trim for best glide and pick a landing spot (limited options in this case).

In some cases with small plane/long runway situations you will be able to execute something like a short field landing with the remaining runway but that is very situationally dependent. When I flew out of KPNE in a Warrior 24 was 7000ft; if you lost an engine at rotation you had plenty of runway. At DYL where I fly now that's not really the case. Every airport is different but a good deal of the airports I have flown out of recently have had long fields at either end of the runway giving maybe an extra 1000 ft or so. Airports in populated areas may have roads you can touch down on.

You should always consult the POH of the specific aircraft in this case for proper emergency procedures.

Specifically to the 152 point, the take off distance is around 1400 ft. full loaded if memory serves. Unless you are training on 2000 ft strips you should have no problem getting the plane back down with remaining runway at all but the shortest of fields. If you are only 10ft up you should be able to put the plane down fast, albeit a bit hard, but fast none the less. For what it's worth Cessna landing gear can take quite a beating. Once you have touched down it would be advised to retract your flaps, this will increase the load on the gear (by reducing your wings' effectiveness) and increase brake effectiveness. You should take care to not lock the brakes as well.

Side Story: This happened to a buddy of mine in his Archer a bunch of years back (I'll try to find the incident report). The plane was fresh out of annual and something was not hooked up correctly and shook loose on take off causing the engine to cut out around 100ft or so. There was a corn field dead ahead and he was able to put the plane down smoothly. Thankfully no one was hurt and he simply owed the farmer for the corn he took out on landing….


You have a few questions here.

  ...downwind pattern and I hear something like this: "123X, tower, you are #2 for runway 3, following a Cessna on final."

In this case what you will do is continue your down wind leg while scanning for the Cessna traffic, some towers may ask you to "report traffic in sight" in which case you will say "traffic in sight" when you can see the Cessna. If he is on a long final you can begin turning your base (assuming you are in a similar small plane of a similar speed) when he is on your beam (right off your wing tip). This should provide adequate spacing for you to come in properly. Keep in mind that the tower may also instruct you to do things to keep separation like "123X Extend your down wind 1 mile" etc.

  ...instructed to make "left pattern for runway 3," am I supposed to wait for the base leg turn until tower clears me for landing?

This depends on where you are coming in from. I have flown into towered airports on the runway heading and simply come into the pattern on final and was cleared to land about a mile from the runway. Other wise I typically report my midfield downwind to the tower "Piper 12345 Reporting Left Midfield Downwind for RW24" then the tower will respond with my landing clearance or instructions to extend. While it is the towers responsibility to clear you for landing and what not, controllers are not perfect, you can continue on towards the runway in your pattern but if you have not been cleared you should go-around or ask for clearance.

The other situation I have been in is a case where the controller deliberately does not clear you but has  you come into the pattern and approach. This occurred while they were waiting for an IRF plan to come through for one of the regional jets waiting for departure. Since they did not know when it would come in I was instructed to continue my pattern and would be cleared on final if they did not need to get the jet out. However I was explicitly told I would be cleared on final so I knew what to listen for.


What is the physical experience of passengers in the cabin during an Emergency Descent?

No nothing like that.  If there was what is usually called "explosive" decompression, like a window blowing out, there will be a loud BANG, maybe a short howling sound as air rushes out, possibly fog will form in the cabin, and you will feel the air pressure in your head trying to get out until it equalizes.  It might make your ear drums hurt until it does.
The air will be chilled by the temperature drop caused by the pressure drop.

The big surprise is you can't feel the "thin" air when you breathe (you'd have to be exerting yourself - just sitting still, you can't tell).  The masks drop and at that altitude you have maybe 15 seconds to get one on before you pass out.

At any rate, explosive decompressions are pretty rare and emer descents are usually triggered by more gradual situations, like a slow loss of cabin pressure, or a windshield that suddenly cracks (although with several laminations and it normally won't fail totally - still, it'll scare the flight deck crew pretty good).

As far as the plane goes, you'll notice the thrust going to idle, the airplane decelerating temporarily, and you may feel the sensation of the nose pitching down to maintain speed, maybe a slight cresting-a-hill-in-a-car reduction in G sensation momentarily, but that's about it.  Nobody floating around the cabin.

When the capt gives the command for emergency descent, whatever the reason, (after they get their masks on and establish communication with each other) the procedure is to pull the thrust to idle right away, spin the altitude select knob for the autopilot to a lower altitude, and set the autopilot to "speed" mode, which tells the autopilot to pitch the nose to maintain airspeed (if the pilot were to shove the nose over manually, it could result in going zero or negative G and making people float around, but the procedure is usually done using the autopilot, which does the pitch over gradually, so that shouldn't happen).

The autopilot will start to pitch the nose over to keep the speed up since the thrust was taken away, so there will be the initial deceleration from pulling power, then a very gradual acceleration in the descent. If the plane has "flight spoilers", the kind that can be extended in flight, they will also be set fully out, so there'll be the rumble from that, and possibly the capt may drop the landing gear to increase the descent rate, depending on the speed and the airplane.

As it starts to pitch over the pilot will dial the speed to maxmimum operating speed if he/she is confident there is no major structural damage.  If unsure, you are supposed to stay at the speed you were at when whatever happened happened.  The most unpleasant part will probably be the noise level in the cabin if there was a rupture of some kind.  Even if there is nothing blown out, when descending at maximum speed the overall noise level is pretty high, a lot louder than cruise.

They'll be heading for 10000 ft and it'll only take a couple of minutes, so it'll be over pretty fast.

Thing to keep in mind about those plastic cabin windows (the structural outer panel, not the one next to you with the tiny vent holes at the bottom). If it's 8" x 10", there is over 600 lbs pushing on it with the cabin pumped up to 8 psi.  Sounds dicey.   But the acrylic plastic is very thick and the window actually has roughly the same strength as the (much thinner) adjacent sheet metal, so it's actually subjected to a fraction of the stress it's able to take.


How does the Space Shuttle slow down during re-entry, descent, and landing?

If you're interested in a more visual, and less technical, explanation of Space Shuttle reentry and landing, I gave a talk titled How to Land the Space Shuttle... from Space at the Stack Overflow meetup in October 2016.

I didn't notice this question until a couple of days ago, but as someone with an unhealthy obsession with specifically the entry and landing phases of shuttle flights, I can say there is a lot of factually incorrect information in the other answers here. Let me see if I can explain it better.

First, the two easy questions, which were answered well by other questions, but I'll include here as well for completeness:

Could the shuttle perform a go-around? No. The OMS engines are too weak to make a difference in the atmosphere, and the main engines (which would be powerful enough) are only fueled by the orange external tank which is jettisoned after launch.
Where did it land? 78 missions landed at the Kennedy Space Center, 54 (including the first) at Edwards Air Force Base, and 1 at White Sands. There were other landing sites designated for emergencies, but none were ever used.

Now, for the really big question of how the shuttle reentered and landed.

  The primary source I'm going to cite in this answer is the Entry, TAEM, and Approach/Landing Guidance Workbook 21002 which was a workbook used for training astronauts. Sadly, I don't have a link to it, but it can be obtained from nasaspaceflight.com via an L2 subscription if you're really interested. I'm going to abreviate this source as ETAGW.

Orbital Mechanics

First, a real quick lesson in orbital mechanics. In order to change the altitude of your orbit you make a change in velocity ($\Delta v$). If you increase velocity, you'll increase altitude, and if you decrease velocity, you'll decrease altitude. However, this effect is most pronounced 180° from the position where you made the change. After a complete 360° orbit, you'll be at approximately the same altitude you started at.

This illustrates the effect:

Starting from the circular orbit (black), if you slow down at point A, you might end up with something like the red orbit, and if you speed up you might end up with something like the blue orbit.

Deorbit Burn

Because of the nature of orbital mechanics, as described above, you want to perform your deorbit maneuver on the opposite side of the planet from your intended landing site. This typically occurred over the Indian Ocean for a landing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The burn itself was performed with the shuttle flying tail first and white (top) side facing towards the Earth (heat shield/black side facing towards space). The two OMS (orbital maneuvering system) engines were used to accomplish the required $\Delta v$ (anywhere between 200 and 550 ft/sec depending on the starting altitude). The burn typically took around 2.5 to 3 minutes. This would lower the perigee (lowest point in an orbit around Earth) to within a few miles of the ground (having a hard time finding a source, but I seem to remember it being around 30-40 miles), which was enough to ensure the orbital path would take them into thick atmosphere.

 Image Source

The OMS engines are essentially larger versions of RCS (reaction control system) jets. RCS jets were used for rotation (attitude) and small translation (velocity in a given direction) changes. The OMS were used for making orbital changes.

Both systems burned the same hypergolic mixture (monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4)). If the OMS had failed, the RCS jets could have, in theory, been used to slow the shuttle enough for reentry.

Nose Flip

Some answers have said that the orbiter would pitch down 140° for the flip. This is incorrect. After the deorbit maneuver was completed, the orbiter would pitch up about 220° until it reached a 40° nose-up angle of attack (referred to as the "EI -5 attitude" because they must be in that attitude by at least five minutes prior to entry interface).

They have about 20 minutes between the deorbit burn and EI-5, so there's plenty of time to pitch in either direction. Nose up was likely preferred because the APU exhaust vents point up near the tail. This naturally causes the orbiter to want to pitch up when the APUs are running.

During this pitch-up, they would fire the forward RCS jets to dump all the forward fuel, unless it was required for center-of-gravity reasons. The forward RCS jets weren't used during reentry, and dumping the fuel reduces potential hazards to the astronauts.

Once in position, open-loop entry guidance would begin, holding the orbiter at 0° roll (wings level), 0° yaw, and 40° angle of attack (alpha).

Entry Interface

NASA defines the entry-interface (EI) as an altitude of 400,000 feet. There's no hard-edge to the atmosphere, but this is around the altitude where its effects start to become directly detectable.

S-Turns

Some answers have claimed that the shuttle used S-turns for the purpose of slowing down. This is a very common, but over-simplified and arguably inaccurate, explanation.

  "The next time you hear someone talk about the shuttle doing roll reversals to bleed off energy, do not listen. The shuttle does roll reversals because it has a very small alpha envelope." - ETAGW 2.8.1 (emphasis is from original source)

As with any airplane, the shuttle's wings generate lift. As the atmosphere gets denser, the wings are going to generate more lift, and this upward lift will cause the descent rate to slow. In fact if the shuttle maintained a wings-level attitude, it would eventually start to gain altitude causing it to "skip" across the atmosphere several times until it was slow enough to fall through. And while technically a skipping reentry would be possible, it would be very difficult to control with any precision.

So, instead, when the decent rate starts to slow, the shuttle goes into a bank. By controlling the bank angle, they're able to control how much upward lift the wings are generating, and, by extension, control their descent rate.

ETAGW Figure 2-5 illustrating lift vector.

Or course, with the lift vector pointed sideways instead of upwards, the shuttle is going to start to turn. Due to the incredible speed, the turn radius is enormous, but it does gradually turn nonetheless, and the orbiter develops an azimuth error (the difference between the orbiter's current direction and the direction to the landing site).

ETAGW Figure 2-3 illustrating azimuth error.

To correct this azimuth error ($\Delta z$), the orbiter performs "roll reversals". In other words, it turns in the other direction. These turns create the distinctive S-turn reentry track.

The first reversal always occurs at 10.5° $\Delta z$. Subsequent reversals occur at 17.5° until Mach 4 when it starts ramping down to 10° at Mach 3.

  Note: all mach numbers given anywhere in this answer, or referenced anywhere in Space Shuttle materials, aren't true mach numbers. NASA uses 1000 ft/sec as an approximation of Mach 1, and all mach numbers are multiples of that velocity.

Ranging

Obviously, the ultimate goal of reentry is to reach your intended runway at an appropriate speed for landing. While the orbiter doesn't have any engines to help accomplish this, it does have a tremendous amount of orbital energy. Therefore the goal becomes energy management, and more specifically, drag management.

The orbiter has two ways to affect drag during entry: changing angle of attack (alpha), and changing bank angle.

Angle of attack is the quickest way to increase or decrease drag, but the orbiter was only allowed to deviate ±3° from the nominal alpha (40° for most of entry). This is the "very small alpha envelope" referred to earlier. The limitation is designed to ensure proper heat protection and maintain vehicle control.

Changing bank angle, as described above, allows you to control your descent rate. A steeper bank angle will result in reaching thicker air faster, and will therefore result in increased drag. A shallower bank angle will keep the orbiter in thinner air for longer, and result in less drag. However, it takes a little longer to see the effect of a bank change than an alpha change.

There are also bank angle limitations because, again, you don't want to skip out of the atmosphere, and you don't want to fall into thick air so fast that it exceeds the maximum drag the vehicle can handle, but it is a larger envelope than the alpha limits. In fact, in early stages of entry, the orbiter could have even flown upside down (with its lift vector pointed towards Earth) if necessary due to an under-burn as the result of a malfunction during the deorbit burn.

Entry Guidance Phases

I'm not going to go into detail about entry guidance, but I will say that the primary considerations change as speed and altitude changes, and the entry guidance is broken up into phases to reflect this.

ETAGW

In the chart above, the middle line represents the nominal profile. The lowest line is the "equilibrium glide" profile which is the minimum amount of drag that the orbiter must maintain to avoid gaining altitude and skipping. The line at the top left represents a thermal limit (if the orbiter exceeds it, it might burn up). The line at the upper right represents a dynamic pressure limit (if the orbiter exceeds it, it might break up due to aerodynamic forces).

Preentry: This is considered open-loop guidance because all it does it maintain 0° yaw, 0° roll, and 40° alpha until the total load factor becomes 0.132g (approximately 3 ft/sec2 of drag), at which point closed-loop guidance begins.
Temperature Control: Begins at closed loop guidance and ends at a velocity of Mach 19. Tries to maintain a constant temperature within the design limits of the orbiter.
Equilibrium Glide: Simply provides a bridge between temperature control and constant drag phases. It ends when drag reaches 33 ft/sec2. It's named as such because its shape is similar to that of the equilibrium glide profile.
Constant Drag: Maintains a constant drag rate of 33 ft/sec2 until velocity reaches Mach 10.5.
Transition: Designed to transition from the high drag and high alpha of entry to the lower drag and lower alpha required for the orbiter to fly more like an airplane. This phase terminates at Mach 2.5 when TAEM begins.

TAEM

TAEM stands for Terminal Area Energy Management. The objective in this stage is to get the orbiter lined up with the runway with the correct amount of energy to make its final approach. Again, I'm not going to go into a ton of detail (feel free to ask other questions if you want), but here's the gist:

If all went well in the entry stage, TAEM will begin at about 82,000 feet and 60 nautical miles from the runway (intended ground track, not straight-line distance).

Whereas Entry guidance primarily uses bank angle to manage energy, TAEM primarily uses angle of attack. Below Mach 1, the speedbrake (a split rudder) also helps with energy management.

Source: NASA

Phases of TAEM:

S-Turn: Usually not required, but the shuttle will perform S-turns if it is too high on energy at the start of TAEM (too high, or too close to the runway).
Acquisition: Turns the orbiter towards a point of tangency on the heading alignment cone (HAC) and then flys wings-level until it intercepts the HAC. The tangency point is referred to as "waypoint 1" (WP1). During this phase, the orbiter slows to below Mach 1, at which point the commander takes CSS (control-stick steering), which is the closest thing the shuttle has to a "manual" mode.
Heading Alignment: Guides the orbiter around a virtual "cone" (see diagram below) until it is in alignment with the runway. It's not really a cone, mathematically speaking, but it's the easiest way to visualize it.
Prefinal: Establishes the orbiter on the outer glide slope.

ETAGW Figure 3-13 illustrating the HAC.

Approach and Landing

The final guidance phase is called "Approach and Landing". It begins when the orbiter is below 10,000 feet and established on the outer glide slope (OGS), but no later than 5000 feet regardless of glide slope.

The OGS was a 20° glide slope for "light" orbiters (gross weight less than 222,000 pounds) or 18° for "heavy" orbiters (by comparison, normal airplanes use a 3° glide slope). Heavy or light depended on what was in the payload bay. The nominal aim point for the OGS was 7500 feet short of the runway threshold, but there was also a "close-in" aim point at 6500 feet which was used in the event of a strong enough headwind.

The speed brake was used to maintain 300 KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed - it's effectively the same as indicated airspeed) on the OGS until 3000 feet, at which time it calculated how much speed brake should be required for landing, and moved to that position. It would re-calculate once more at 500 feet.

At 2000 feet, the orbiter would begin a "preflare" maneuver designed to transition from the OGS to the shallow 1.5° inner glide slope (IGS). This was accomplished with a circular pull-up followed by an exponential decay onto the IGS.

ETAGW Figure 4-8 illustrating the preflare geometry.

In reality, the IGS is not followed for long, and is more of a guide for making sure you cross the runway threshold on the proper trajectory and get into position to begin the final flare, which is essentially the same as a conventional landing flare in a normal aircraft, except that the shuttle lands at a much higher angle of attack (about 8°) due to its delta wings (more similar to Concorde).

Landing gear was deployed at 300 feet, and if you're interested in landing gear, I wrote a whole answer on landing gear deployment once.

The targeted touchdown point was 2500 feet down the runway at an airspeed of 195 knots for light orbiters, or 205 knots for heavy (within +5/-10 knots).

The drag chute (an addition made in the early 90's) would be deployed shortly after main gear touchdown, but not faster than 195 knots, and sometimes they would wait until nose gear touchdown if there was a crosswind. It would be jettisoned at 60 knots to ensure the chute attachment mechanism didn't hit and damage the main engines.

Control

(e.g. how was the shuttle able to make attitude changes?)

In early entry, the orbiter is still controlled like a spacecraft, using RCS jets to control attitude. As dynamic pressure (q-bar) increases, the aerodynamic surfaces begin to become active and the RCS jets shutdown as follows:

q-bar = 0.5 pounds/ft2 (psf), the elevons begin to act as trim.
q-bar = 2 psf, elevons begin to act as active control surfaces.
q-bar = 10 psf, RCS roll jets are disabled.
q-bar = 40 psf, RCS pitch jets are disabled.
Mach 10, the speedbrake opens on a pre-programmed schedule to act as pitch trim.
Mach 5, rudder becomes active, initially acting primarily as aileron trim.
Mach 1, RCS yaw jets are disabled.

Navigation

(e.g. how did the shuttle know where it was at?)

Navigation, in NASA terms, basically means knowing where you are (guidance answers the question "how do I get where I want to go?"). During entry, the shuttle primarily used inertial navigation units, which were aligned using a star tracker prior to the deorbit burn. As it got closer to the landing site it could also incorporate GPS and/or TACAN signals into the nav data. OV-105 (aka Space Shuttle Endeavor) had a three GPS units installed and no TACANs, whereas the other orbiters had three TACANs and one GPS unit.

On the HAC, anywhere from about 15k to 20k feet in altitude, the orbiter would pick up the microwave landing system (MLS), which acts sort of like a very high precision ILS. From this, they're able to determine their position with high precision and accuracy. Once acquired, this becomes the primary source of nav data for the remainder of the flight.

On landing videos, you can actually see exactly when they pick up MLS because the altitude tape goes from being sort of jerky, then jumps a little bit and becomes smooth. For example, watch here at about the 20k mark (altitude tape is the one on the right).

Below 5000 feet, the orbiter was also able to use a radar altimeter for altitude information.

That's probably more information than you were looking for, but if you have questions about things I didn't cover, or didn't go into enough detail on, feel free to ask separate questions for those.


How can I find examples of airports with specific approach types?

An ASR approach is an Approach Surveillance Radar style approach. The guys on MZeroA.com flew one in this video at KLAN. They are not "at" any airport nor are there plates for them it is effectively a function of ATC. I have heard them flown at a few "smaller" class D facilities near me for practice. Generally to practice them you need to be somewhere that ATC does not mind clogging the radio up as they take a fair bit of radio work to fly.

The RNAV (GPS) RW1 into KWWD has only LNAV minimums. (Note: It also has circling minimums which most LNAV airports will have unless terrain or some other issue forbids a circling maneuver).

As far as I know there are no LPV approaches that take you lower than 200 feet as is regulated by the FAA:

  Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV). An RNAV function
  requiring WAAS, using a final approach segment (FAS) data block, which
  computes, displays and provides both horizontal and approved vertical
  approach navigation to minimums as low as 200 foot ceiling and ½ mile
  visibility.


What does “Ground loops are costly. Fly them until they stop” mean?

It just means "pay attention to what you are doing" until you are no longer moving.  "Fly them" means "keep actively controlling the plane as if you were still in the air". Don't start daydreaming just because you're on the ground, in other words.

Especially with the taildraggers of olden times;

They are dynamically unstable turning-wise while rolling along the ground (because the CG is behind the fixed traction points; try driving a car backward really fast) and require careful attention to staying directionally aligned even while moving slowly.  Taildraggers with locking/free swivelling tailwheels (which you tend to see on the larger ones) are even more demanding, and are basically like a shopping cart rolling backwards (the kind with fixed back wheels, not the 4-wheel caster kind) once the tailwheel is unlocked for taxiing, and need to be steered with brakes alone, which requires quite a bit of concentration.
They like to tip forward under hard braking so keeping full up elevator while taxiing is a requirement to minimize this tendency
Strong quartering winds, if present, are trying to tip you over while 3 point on the ground and you have to learn to apply appropriate amounts of aileron to counteract this tendency.

A lot of stuff to keep in mind.  The tendency of a new pilot, when they had a successful landing, was to breath a sigh of relief and relax during the rollout when dropping below, say, 30 kt where rudder power fades away, or during taxi, forget they were in a backwards rolling shopping cart that is trying to switch ends continuously and let their mind wander, and oops.

Tricycle gear airplanes are nowhere near as physically demanding, but still you need to pay attention to what you are doing so it still applies in the end.


Does the power behind the engine make any difference to how strong the thrust is?

You ask:

  If the engine can spin the propeller fast enough, why does it need power behind it?

Good question. However, the answer is in the if of your question.

A propellor does work - it pulls (or sometimes pushes) the aircraft through the air. In order to move the aircraft at a useful speed (or even at all) it has to spin pretty fast.

The faster it spins, the more work it has to do. That work requires power. If the engine doesn't have enough power, it can't spin the propellor fast enough.

So yes, though the power and the speed of the spin are not the same thing, you won't get the spin without the power.

If you consider a car, the engine has to spin the wheels fast enough to move it along at the desired speed. And what makes it possible for it to spin the wheels fast enough is power. Otherwise, the wheels won't turn fast enough (or at all), and the car won't move fast enough (or at all). It's the same in the case of an aeroplane.


Has anyone burned hydrogen in a gas turbine?

Yes, indeed the plan to build a hydrogen-powered jet laid the groundwork for using hydrogen in the Centaur rockets and the upper stages of the Saturn 5. While hydrogen was used only experimentally in test rigs, the Soviet Union built a derivative of a regular airliner, the Tupolev 155, for testing hydrogen and natural gas in flight.

EDIT: NACA also did in-flight testing. Please see @jayhendren's answer for details.

So yes, the Tu-155 was indeed flown on several occasions with one hydrogen-powered turbofan. While the left and center engine remained NK-8s, the right engine was replaced by a NK-88 which was adapted for LNG and hydrogen. Other projects like one for a hydrogen-powered supersonic airliner sadly ended with the Soviet Union itself.

Tu-155 Cutaway view (picture source)

Hydrogen is also the prime propellant in hypersonic ramjets, but those are not turbines.

Hydrogen has a wide mixing ratio with air where it will burn. Also, being gaseous, it mixes much more quickly with air, so the combustion chamber can be small. When a converted J-57 was experimentally run on hydrogen in 1957,

  The test engineers were agreeably surprised by the ease of engine operation. They ran it at full power and throttled back so far that the air fan was revolving so slowly the individual blades could be counted. Under this latter condition, the throttle could be opened and the engine would quickly and smoothly accelerate to full power. They found that the temperature distribution was good and there were no major problems.

But Niels is correct - its low density makes hydrogen problematic. As Alexis W. Lemmon, Jr., reported in May 1945 in his report on possible jet fuels (from history.nasa.gov):

  "Although the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen system has by far the highest specific impulse performance of any system considered in this report, the low average density of the fuel components almost completely eliminates this system from all but very minor applications."


What are some examples of pilot error with criminal negligence?

In the US, negligence would imply willfulness. Errors and accidents don’t imply willfulness nor negligence. That’s the difference between a death caused by an automobile traffic accident due to weather and one caused by a drunk driver. The latter is criminally punishable. The willfulness to do something wrong or not do something right is negligence. Making a decision that an average person would consider reasonable should not be prosecuted. Even if it is the wrong one.

The converse of making a reasonable decision in the case of flying would be to willingly fly the aircraft in a manner beyond the pilots capability or legal competency. If the pilot is not certificated and current, or flying the aircraft into a situation for which it is not certificated could be considered as negligent. The pilot had to do so due to an emergency, that would be a different story.

The same is true regarding intent. If your intent was to break a law, rule, or regulation (even if you did not know there was a law, rule, or regulation regarding your actions), that is criminal. A prosecutor or FAA official can even argue for the criminality of breaking a recommendation, best practice, or commonly accepted procedure if your actions led to an accident, injury, or fatality.


Can I do a VFR night sightseeing flight in Europe?

Yes you can file a flightplan with the same departure and destination. You generally do not need to include detailed routing, unless local rules require you to do so (but if you are planning to cross a country border, you probably need to include a point of crossing and estimated time). One thing to consider is that the EET in your flightplan should be accurate, since alerting service is based on that (if you don't arrive within a certain amount of minutes after your ETA, search and rescue efforts will be initiated). However, as long as you are contact with ATC while in the air, you can always just inform them of a revised ETA, and they can pass that on to your destination airfield.


Does the a320 neo have anything like MCAS?

Different airplanes, different systems; however, all modern airliners have computer assisted flight controls to some degree.  These include stall protection of various types, of which Boeing's MCAS is one.  Airbus uses different methods of stall protection, but there's still a computer involved.

Do you need to worry about the same issue?  No.  Part of Boeing's problem was that they didn't tell people about their system and pilots weren't trained.  Had the pilots known about the system and how to disable it, the crashes probably would have been avoided.


Constant turn radius with Δ airspeed and bank

You are right on all accounts.

In a steady-state turn, from circular motion, we have, with $F_c$ being centripetal force, $V$ being airspeed in zero wind, $R$ being the radius of turn, and $m$ being the aircraft mass:

$$F_c=m\frac{V^2}{R}$$

The centripetal acceleration in a coordinated turn is created from the banked lift vector ($L$), therefore, with $\phi$ being the bank angle:

$$L\sin\phi=m\frac{V^2}{R}$$

Therefore, the radius of turn is:

$$R=\frac{V^2}{g\tan\phi}$$

and the rate of turn is:

$$\dot{\psi}=\frac{g\tan\phi}{V}$$

As speed increases, you would need an ever larger bank angle in order to achieve the same rate of turn. Of course, there's a limit to how much lift you can get out of the wing at a given speed, especially at higher Mach when transonic buffet becomes the limiting factor.


Is there any FAR defining an "introductory" or "familiarization" flight?

There's no formal definition or regulation that I could find; introductory flights aren't defined in 14 CFR 1.1, for example. I'm not sure why the FAA would care how often you fly with someone, or what the difference is between an introductory flight and any other flight with a non-paying, 'non-logging' passenger.

The only other people who might care about it are the TSA but if you aren't providing instruction during the flight then that shouldn't matter either. Introductory flights are usually understood to be a "demonstration flight for marketing purposes" (49 CFR 1552.1) and therefore exempt from TSA requirements, but there doesn't seem to be any rule about how many demo flights you can make with an individual.


Are solar / geomagnetic storms real risks for commercial aviation?

A pilot in command can always veto, scrub, or divert a flight. Per the Federal Aviation Regulations FAR 91.3(a), "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." This applies to airline operations (air carriers, FAR Part 121), air taxis and charters (FAR Part 135), and general aviation (FAR Part 91) operations.

A much bigger issue than than the radiation exposure for the people will be the atmospheric effects of the radiation, and how the radiation affects, e.g., satellite navigation. A very strong solar flare can require shutting down some on-orbit satellites to avoid damage—including navigation satellites, such as GPS. A very strong solar flare can ionize the atmosphere to the point it interferes with communications, especially in the HF band used for transoceanic communications.


ATC will try to contact the unknown aircraft on the sector frequency and, if that fails, on Guard.  Since they don't have a tail number, they'll call the aircraft by location and altitude (e.g. unknown aircraft 4 miles northwest of XXX at 3500 feet).  At the same time, they'll begin vectoring other traffic away from it to maintain separation; this is similar to how Center/Approach will vector IFR traffic around unknown VFR traffic in Class E airspace, except in Class B they'll also be vectoring VFR traffic (rather than giving mere traffic advisories) as well.  There will likely be missed approaches, TCAS RAs, etc. that have to be dealt with as well.  Still, the only real difference with this happening in Class B vs Class C/D is the staggering volume of traffic affected.

ATC may in some cases ask a friendly pilot in the right place to try to identify the violator.  I've been asked to do that once; we weren't fast enough to get the tail number, but we did identify it as a low-wing single at the reported altitude, which was still useful info for ATC.  I don't know what happened after ATC vectored us back on course; this was years before LiveATC existed.

If/when communication is established, ATC will inform the pilot they're in the Bravo, give them a squawk code and vector them out as quickly and directly as possible without further disruption to traffic flows--without regard for the pilot's desired course.  They'll also ask them to "copy the phone number", as with other violations.  Don't expect any favors from ATC after that, of course, but they're as calm and professional as usual once the immediate safety problem is resolved.

I don't know anything personally about VTOL operations, but I'd assume they'd stay with Tower just like a helicopter--either "cleared to land" on the runway or "land at your own risk" somewhere else on the airport--and wouldn't go to Ground until/unless they needed to taxi within the movement area.


What is the bank angle that should be sustained to move in a uniform circular motion?

I hope you also appreciate help that uses the metric system. You should. It makes the calculation much simpler.

So your question is: What bank angle $\varphi$ do I get when flying a circle of a known radius $R$?

All by itself, the question cannot be answered. You need to specify a speed, either the flight speed $v$ or the angular velocity $\omega$, in order to find the proper bank angle. Then it is easy:
$$tan\varphi = \frac{v^2}{R\cdot g}\;\; \text{or}\;\;\varphi = arctan\left(\frac{v^2}{R\cdot g}\right)$$
$$tan\varphi = \frac{\omega\cdot v}{g}\;\; \text{or}\;\;\varphi = arctan\left(\frac{\omega\cdot v}{g}\right)$$
where $g$ is the gravitational acceleration and all parameters should be inserted in their SI units. $\varphi$ will be in radians!

If you don't know either speed, try some values until you get a reasonable angle, which would be not more than 30° for civilian and 75° and more for military aircraft. You can find an upper bound for that angle if you know the maximum sustained load factor of the respective plane because the roll angle and the load factor $n_z$ in a turn are directly related:
$$tan\varphi = \sqrt{n_z^2 - 1}\;\; \text{or}\;\;\varphi = arctan\left(\sqrt{n_z^2 - 1}\right)$$


How to handle the formula for computing net thrust of closely coupled engine systems for an engine with a nacelle that has non-circular dimensions?

In review of my earlier question, @Penguin and my math professor's commentaries agree on the point that the equation $$ Fn= \displaystyle \oint V_x\rho\vec V\cdot\vec n \ dA + \displaystyle \oint(P-P_{\infty})\vec n_x \ dA$$ is the meat of the problem and that when you get the piecewise pressure and velocity, the third term $$- \displaystyle \oint \vec \tau_x \ dA$$ was inconsequential, as it (as far as I can mathematically deduce) describes the core cowl and the external nacelle. As it is an independent characteristic, I'm confident I can just adjust the modelling for a different shape. Thanks again to @Pengiun for providing an outside perspective to my dilemma.


It's an Antonov An-2.

[It] is a Soviet mass-produced single-engine biplane utility/agricultural aircraft designed (...) in 1946. Its remarkable durability, high lifting power, and ability to take off and land from poor runways have given it a long service life. The An-2 is still produced and remains in service with military and civilian operators around the world.

Original image here (no description though).
(commons.wikimedia.org)
(commons.wikimedia.org)


What are the forces present in a coordinated turn?

To get a deeper understanding beyond the superficial, it helps to break down the forces and moments present on an aircraft that may affect its rigid-body motion:

Aerodynamic forces: These are the forces and moments exerted by the airflow on the aircraft

Ground forces: These are the forces and moments exerted by the ground on the aircraft, transmitted through tyres and landing gear. Not applicable when it's flying.

Propulsion: Forces and moments due to direct thrust. For simplification, let's assume that thrust acts inline with the forward axis.

Gravitational forces: Gravity pulls the aircraft towards the ground. It's rather special because everything, be the aircraft structures, you, me, or the accelerometers, get pulled at the same rate ($g$)1. This is distinctly different than the other two types of forces, which are only present when airflow affects exposed areas, or when contact with the ground has been made.

Inertial forces: These are fictitious forces and moments that are required to maintain non-uniform motion. This includes your centripetal force. Inertial forces must always be equal to the sum of all the aforementioned external forces.

First of all, let's consider any turn a steady-state maneuver (thereby ignoring the transients like rolling in and rolling out), which means that the vector sum of all the external forces, including gravity, must sum to the inertial forces. As you've correctly pointed out, the sum of aerodynamic forces + gravitational forces must be equal to the centripetal force, which in the turning plane is provided by lift, side force and gravity. This must hold true for any steady-state turn, whether coordinated or not.

There are two ways to define a coordinated turn. With all engines operating, they are approximately equivalent:

A zero-sideslip turn
A ball-centered turn: we are going to use this definition

What ball-centered means is that there are no aerodynamic forces acting laterally on the airplane: lift must provide all the centripetal force required. Ball centered provides the best average feel for the occupants, since the forces are directly inline with the floor, and there's no side force causing sway. Since everything feels gravity at the same rate, occupants or the ball cannot detect gravity.
For illustration:

For the more math oriented, in inertial frame, Newton's second law is stated as:
$$\vec{F_{i}}+m\vec{g_i}=m\frac{d\vec{V_i}}{dt} \tag{1}$$
The entire right hand side is considered to be inertial forces. However, if the measurements occur in a rotating frame (on an airplane, for example), then we need to express everything into the body frame. The left-hand side is easy:
$$\vec{F_{b}} = C_{bi}\vec{F_{i}} \tag{2}$$
$$\vec{g_b} = C_{bi}\vec{g_i} \tag{3}$$
where $C_{bi}$ is the rotation matrix transforming a vector from inertial frame to body frame.
The right-hand side requires some adjustments, because the Euler angles of the body themselves are changing:
$$\frac{d\vec{V_b}}{dt}=\frac{d(C_{bi}\vec{V_i})}{dt}$$
Apply chain rule, and we have:
$$\frac{d\vec{V_b}}{dt}=\frac{dC_{bi}}{dt}\vec{V_i}+C_{bi}\frac{d\vec{V_i}}{dt} \tag{4}$$
It can be mathematically shown the following identity:
$$\frac{dC_{bi}}{dt}\vec{V_i} = -\vec{\omega_b} \times \vec{V_b} \tag{5}$$
Substitute (5) into (4), and we get:
$$C_{bi}\frac{d\vec{V_i}}{dt} = \frac{d\vec{V_b}}{dt} + \vec{\omega_b} \times \vec{V_b}$$
Finally, if we multiply both sides of (1) by $C_{bi}$ and simplify with (2), (3) and (5), we get:
$$\vec{F_{b}}+m\vec{g_b}=m \left( \frac{d\vec{V_b}}{dt}+\vec{\omega_b} \times \vec{V_b} \right) \tag{6}$$
(6) is the Newton's second law in a rotating frame. The entire right-hand side are still inertial forces (same as (1)), except now we also have the cross-product, which produces the centripetal inertial forces:
$$\vec{\omega_b} \times \vec{V_b} = \begin{bmatrix}p \\ q \\ r\end{bmatrix} \times \begin{bmatrix}u \\ v \\ w\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} qw - rv \\ ru - pw \\ pv - qu \end{bmatrix} \tag{7}$$
You will readily identify terms like $ru$, which is very close to the familiar $a_c=\omega V$ for a restricted 2D centripetal motion (whence $p=0$ and $q=0$).
One final note, the right-hand side is fictitious in that they are not real forces! They are a result of the kinematic motion itself, and must require the left-hand side (which are the real forces), to sustain.

1: Technically, this is only true locally, because Earth is a sphere and does not exert a uniform field at different altitudes. But at the range of altitudes that airplanes will be flying, this is a rather good approximation.


Can a controller be tasked to provide more than one ATC service at a time?

Since you've asked for a document, check ICAO Doc 4444:

  3.1.3.1 Where traffic demand varies significantly on a daily or periodic basis, facilities and procedures should be implemented to vary the number of operational sectors or working positions to meet the prevailing and anticipated demand. Applicable procedures should be contained in local instructions.

The ATS authority can indeed vary the number of working positions based on demand. The local instructions of the airport you visited will contain the details you need.


How many stripes does a student pilot have?

Stripes don't have any standardized meaning in between companies. If a company wanted, it could give one stripe to its most senior captains and four stripes to the office dog.

If your employer or your school has issued you a uniform, then the number of stripes that you have is the number of stripes that they decided to put on that uniform. If you haven't been issued a uniform, then you don't have any stripes.


What are those things at the wing tip of an aerobatic aircraft?

They are external attitude references. They're aligned with the aircraft's axes and positioned along the pilot's line of sight to give a quick visual guide to the aircraft's attitude during aerobatic maneuvres.

You can see the alignment more clearly on this photograph


What were the "flap pump" and "gear pump" on the F-4E Phantom II?

There is no "Flap Pump" or "Gear pump". There is a hydraulic system on the F4 though. All those systems need hydraulic power. They run on hydraulics.


Do commercial airliners use supercritical airfoils?

Supercritical aerofoils are definitely widespread in modern airliners, including the A330. In fact, the A300 which is the predecessor to the A330 was one of the first airliners to fly with a supercritical wing.

The reason for this is that maintaining slightly supersonic flow over the majority of the upper surface keeps it at high speed, hence producing low pressure and lift for longer and it also shrinks the shock from flow decelerating back to subsonic, compared to a conventional foil. As well as these direct aerodynamic benefits their thicker t/c ratio compared to efficient conventional sections makes the wing structure easier to design, making them a no-brainer for pretty much all modern airliners.


Can air travel cause packaging air pads to burst or deflate?

Simple answer: yes, air travel can deflate or pop air pillows.

Longer answer: Cargo holds are at the same pressure as the rest of the airplane, it's part of the pressure vessel. Generally airplanes are pressured to about 8000ft, so the air is a lot thinner and therefore there will be a higher pressure differential between the air in the pads and the air in the hold. Thin plastic is somewhat porous and will leak some air, the rate this happens will be faster when there's a higher pressure differential. This differential is known to pop these air pillows to the point many will not use them when shipping by air. Styrofoam, cellulose pops, or crumpled paper are the preferred method.

You can see these forces at work next time you fly yourself by taking an empty disposable plastic water bottle on board. Seal it with the cap at airport altitude before departure. After takeoff as the airplane climbs the plastic will bulge as the cabin pressure drops, and when you uncap it you will probably hear a hiss. Seal it back up and then during descent the bottle will crumple as the air pressure increases.


If a plane lands vertically in a strong headwind, what will the pilot do to exit the runway?

If you're in a situation where you can "land vertically" (I assume that means you are landing into a headwind equal in velocity to your landing airspeed), then it's simply dangerous for an aircraft to be anywhere on the ground without being properly tied down. Even if you were able to turn the aircraft, it would probably be lifted into the air again as the wind caught the fuselage broadside.


What regulations apply to a VFR flight from South Africa to Namibia?

For SA to Namibia:
Factors to consider

Buying all the appropriate charts.
Clouds: if you can't maintain the required separation, you need to switch to IFR, which means the plane needs to be IFR-equipped, and for you to be IFR rated.

Sources: Namibia AIP GEN 3.2 and ENR 1.2

En route airway paths
All airways from SA to Namibia are Class A, so VFR is not allowed along ATS routes.
Source: Namibia AIP ENR 3

Permission
You need overflight permission from Namibia, else there's an up to N\$50,000 fine or 5 years imprisonment. It is submitted 24 hours before.
Source: SA AIC D 012/2014

Flight plan – yes
Across international borders flights do require flight plans (the ICAO type) in accordance with ICAO SARPs Annex 2 (Rules of the Air), which both SA and Namibia require.
Sources: SA and Namibia AIPs GEN 1.2

See also:

SA AIP
Namibia AIP

For any other countries that share a border, refer to the respective AIPs.


Why does elevator input move the turn coordinator ball in steep turns?

In a steep turn you are making power changes, pitch changes and also making constant corrections with aileron to hold the bank angle, without even realizing it.  Once established in the turn some airplanes require a bit of in-turn aileron to hold the bank angle, some hold the bank with neutral aileron, and some require top aileron to keep from overbanking.  The top and down aileron inputs are inducing constantly changing adverse yaw forces which come and go, changing torque effects from the engine with power adjustments are producing changing yaw forces, and gyro precession from the prop from pitch motions are inducing yaw forces which come and go, and there are bumps, and you start running into your own wake.

In other words, you are in a machine pulled along by a big torque producing gyro that is slithering and sliding around in a gas with half a dozen forces and moments interacting on it simultaneously.  With all the subtle forces and inputs happening during a turn, I don't think you can identify and act on a single phenomenon like that.   What you have to do is, well, just do whatever it takes to hold the bank angle, altitude and center the ball and don't overthink it.

If you fly gliders, which use a yaw string that is more sensitive than a ball, even without the torque and gyro effects of an engine, the yaw string drifts this way and that while in a turn, seemingly independent of the aileron position some of the time. You generally make stabs of rudder in concert with aileron, but sometimes the yaw string seems to have a mind of its own and you just do what you have to do with your feet.


What's the purpose of airline CREW tags?

It’s not an official/legal tag. Just a reminder for ground crew. At my company, luggage handlers unloading checked in luggage from the cargo will leave the bag near the aircraft (to be picked up by the crew) rather than bring it in to the terminal through the normal luggage flow. The ideea being that bag belongs to a crew member (active or positioning) and he might move arround the apron without ever going into the terminal.

Mind you this is just a courtesy, not a guaranteed thing. Should you put this on to your (checked in) bag there is a good posibility a ground operator will leave it under the plane for a while, then, when no crew comes to claim it, it will go through a lengthy process back to terminal. So your bag will have to honor of being one or two hours late to the conveyor belt.


What causes fuel gauges to be untrustworthy?

The problem is small airplanes use automotive style rheostat (variable resistor) fuel senders, with the float in the tank, and these just aren't reliable enough to be trusted with something potentially life or death like fuel quantity, and they aren't particularly accurate in the first place.

Here's the thing... In a car you just drive around going past gas stations constantly until the gauge is low.  Imagine you were operating a car in some remote place where the gas stations were 300 miles apart and if you run out of gas short of the next gas station, the road is full of hungry alligators equipped with Slim Jims, making your door locks useless, and you, dinner.

Well, your tank is good for 600 miles and it's half full on the gauge.  Maybe good for 300 miles, maybe not. Are you willing to trust the automotive gauge now?  This is what faces you as pilot any time the tanks are not full, in an airplane with 40 year old fuel senders, that maybe sits around for extended periods.

Bigger airplanes use fuel quantity measurement systems that use "Capacitance Probes", hollow tubes with a center rod, and a current is passed through and the capacitance measured by the fuel level in the tube that completes the circuit between the outer tube and the inner rod.  A computer will monitor the levels from several probes arranged around the tank and they provide a very precise and reliable fuel reading.

There are capacitance probe senders available for homebuilt aircraft, but I'm not aware of any certified units that can be installed in something like a 152.  If available, that would be a good solution, although I'd probably still not be willing to trust it 100%.

Best thing is to use a dipstick and be aware of your fuel consumption/time. During training and renting airplanes, people get into the habit of always going somewhere with full tanks, but later on, especially if you are flying commercially, you are going to have to fly a lot with intermediate quantities, excess fuel being unwanted ballast, so you need to get into the habit of knowing and tracking fuel quantity.

Impress your instructor by showing up with something like this and you will always know exactly how much fuel you have.  If you're cheap and refuel the plane yourself you can make your own with a wood stick if you have a way to get all the useable fuel out of the tank, then add 5 gal at a time and marking your stick appropriately at each level.


Why doesn't a full yoke deflection also change the stabilizer trim on the Boeing 737 MAX?

The yoke does move the elevators, whereas the trim moves the horizontal stabilizer. The stabilizer is much larger than the elevators, and therefore is more effective than the elevator at extreme angles. Even with full backpressure, the nose would continue to pitch down.

Nonetheless, all 737NGs/MAXs have trim cutout switches, 1 for the autopilot and 1 for the normal electric trim. Using these would immediately disable the electric trim. These are generally part of a standard trim runaway situation, but the crew did not recognize the situation and failed to use them.


Are Dreamliner windscreens periodically replaced irrespective of damage?

First, Boeing does not provide any statues for when maintenance is performed. They provide guidelines and recommendations through the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) manual that most airlines follow. Some of these recommendations are required to be performed by the FAA with the certification of the aircraft or later AD action.

That said, there are no recommended maintenance tasks for the 787 windshields. The reasons is windshields are certified to be able to to hold cabin pressurization even with every pane shattered. Although there is no recommended or required task to replace the windshields at a set interval, some airlines may choose to do so for operational reasons.

Mandatory part replacements based on flight hours or cycles is almost exclusively reserved for a special classification of hardware known as "Safe Life Parts" these are generally just the Landing Gear and Engine Rotors. These are required to be scraped at specific intervals due their failure mechanisms and because they can be single point catastrophic failures.

I have specifically reviewed whether or not hard time replacement of 737/757/767 and 777 windshields made sense at a very large airline. The data showed that windshield failure rates when plotted against either cycles or hours had very large standard deviations. This means it is very hard to set an appropriate hard time interval, if you set it too early you would have few failures in the field but you replaced a lot of windows that had a ton of life left on them, if you set it too late you still had many field failures and were still throwing away good windows. When doing a Wiebull analysis I was able to identify at least 8 different failure mechanisms that all had very different rates and only affected a small population of windshields. To highlight the point, we had multiple windshields that failed after less than 100 flight hours while we had many that lasted more than 60,000 flight hours (and a few that were up to 80,000 that had never been replaced).


Is a civilian pilot allowed to fly under part 91 rules with Night Vision Goggles?

Theoretically? Yes. In practice? Maybe.

The FARs provide for civilian operations under NVGs, but the story is a bit more complicated.

NVG operations requirements for pilots are covered in 61.31(k) for obtaining an endorsement and 61.57(f) for currency. Reading over the wording, the FAA appears to take the same general approach that they do with tailwheels: i.e. get trained and endorsed and then stay current.

The problem is with the aircraft rather, as 91.205(h) requires, in addition to day and night VFR equipment, a gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (not typically an issue), a generator or alternator as per IFR reqs (again, not generally an issue), interior and exterior lighting appropriate for NVG ops (may be an issue), and a radar altimeter (definitely an issue in almost all light, and some not-so-light, aircraft).

Not sure about the goggles themselves, maybe there's a TSO out there giving tech specifications for aviation-specific NVGs?


How is the center of mass controlled in planes with multiple tail engines?

The wings are placed sufficiently far aft.

Yes, moving the wings aft moves the C/G aft as well, but since the fuselage has some weight, eventually the centre of lift overtakes the centre of gravity and there you place the wings.

A slight problem is that C/G of cargo gets quite a bit ahead of the C/G of the airframe, causing a large difference in overall C/G position between empty and loaded aircraft and a larger horizontal stabilizer is required to maintain control over the whole range. And that, of course, reduces overall efficiency.

When you look at aircraft with tail-mounted engines, you'll see that it has wings further aft compared to one with wing-mounted engines.

Note that Concorde additionally could transfer fuel between forward and aft fuel tank in flight to adjust the C/G in flight to reduce the needed deflection of the elevators. But that was not because of the overall aft C/G—the centre of lift was correspondingly far aft—but because the centre of lift moves quite significantly aft in supersonic flight.


Is there any effect that contributes to roll stability even in the absence of sideslip?

Buoyancy is one such effect!  Or more specifically, a buoyant force acting above the aircraft CG.  Think hot-air balloon, dirigible, blimp.
I think I've also thought of one such effect involving conventional winged airplanes but will mull it over some more before answering.


What's this black rectangle painted on the side of a V-1 flying bomb?

A "Pallung" is a piece of wood (or something similar) that prevents ships (or something similar) from falling over when they are on land. "abstellen" means to put something down (such as luggage) or into storage. There are some recent articles that contain the word "Pallung" on google news, such as this one.
Assuming that the book depicted in this pdf is authentic, you can see what an Abstellpallung for a V1 looks like on page 29, indicated by the letters b and c:

Note that the text twice says "Markierung am Rumpf beachten!" (mind the markings on the fuselage), which probably corresponds to the black rectangles mentioned by the OP.

(Some native German users have indicated that they have never heard the word. Neither have I, until today. I am not sure about other languages, but in German, some domains have very specific vocabulary that a layman will almost never get in contact with. One example of this is anything connected with ships, another one is hunting, and there are probably some more. The manual contains another example just in the preceding sections (what does "heißen" mean here?). So "I have never heard the word" may just mean that someone is not familiar with some particular domain.)


Does a straight missed approach require all turns to be less than or equal to 15 degrees?

A straight missed approach can have a combination of both straight and turning parts. The straight part is called the intermediate missed approach, while the turning part is called the final missed approach. When a straight missed approach starts a turn of more than 15°, the turning missed approach criteria applies, as stated in Part I, Section 4, Chapter 6.3.4 of ICAO DOC 8168 Vol. II:

  Wherever practical the missed approach track should be a continuation of the final approach track. Missed approaches involving turns are permitted (see 6.4, “Turning missed approach”), but should only be employed when an operational advantage may be obtained.

Take this approach from Ålesund Airport in Norway for example:

In the straight part you have a track change of 6°, which satisfies the criteria for a straight missed approach. This allows a reduced Minimum Obstacle Clearance (MOC) of 30 m, among other things. When AL821 is reached, the turning missed approach criteria is applied, and the MOC is increased to 50 m.


What aircraft maintenance logs should I have available for a private checkride?

The answer to your question is in the Private Pilot ‒ Airplane Airman Certification Standards

  Task   B. Airworthiness Requirements References   14 CFR parts 39, 43,
  91; FAA-H-8083-2, FAA-H-8083-25

You should read and understand CFR §91.203, §91.205, §91.207, §91.209,  §91.213, and §91.215.

The DPE will want to know that the aircraft is legally permitted to operate in the airspace that you will be taking your practical test in.

They will check that the AR(R)OW documents are in the aircraft—Airworthiness Certificate, Current Registration, probably not Radio License since it is not likely your test will take you to another country, Operating Limitations, and current Weight and Balance. Operating Limitations would include placards; any documents required by STCs for installed equipment e.g. GPS or autopilot; and for newer aircraft flight manual (AFM) for that aircraft.

They will check the logbooks to make sure that the aircraft is legal maintenance-wise. Annual Inspection and 100-hour AD items obviously. Some 100 hour items can be signed off by the pilot e.g. Bendix switch check while others need to be signed off by an A&P e.g. muffler shroud inspection. Most A&Ps use a computer system that prints out a list of ADs and when they were complied with. It is a good idea to put a sticky-note on the annual and recurring ADs pages so you don’t waste time looking for them.

ELTs are usually checked at annual time, but they can get out of sync with the annual and they will check that. If you are taking the test in an aircraft with an electrical system, the transponder must be working and checked in the last 24 months. You don’t need a pitot-static check for a private checkride, but if you are going to file and fly IFR flight plan—as you will for your instrument rating you will need one.

If there is any inoperative equipment e.g. LORAN then it must be logged and marked.

ADSB isn’t required yet, but after January 1, 2020 if you fly in the covered areas your aircraft must have it installed. CFR §91.225.

On an instrument check-ride the DPE will want to see that the database is current if you have a GPS and that the VOR check has been done.

They will also check to make sure that your medical is current and that you have all of the endorsements necessary for the aircraft e.g. complex, high performance, tailwheel.


What time zone is used for operating an airplane?

The pilot (and the ATC) use the UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). The flight's departure and arrival are in terms of the local times at the respective airports.

As for data logging, the FDR/CVR usually records in UTC (preferred) or the relative time count (usually count increments each 4 seconds of system operation). See Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications, for example.


What is the function of the hole at the rear of the airplane?

This one? It's the APU(auxiliary power unit)'s exhaust.

An auxiliary power unit (APU) is a device on a vehicle that provides energy for functions other than propulsion.

  The primary purpose of an aircraft APU is to provide power to start
  the main engines. Turbine engines must be accelerated to a high
  rotational speed to provide sufficient air compression for
  self-sustaining operation. Smaller jet engines are usually started by
  an electric motor, while larger engines are usually started by an air
  turbine motor. Before the engines are to be turned, the APU is
  started, generally by a battery or hydraulic accumulator. Once the APU
  is running, it provides power (electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic,
  depending on the design) to start the aircraft's main engines.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit


Are non-military aircraft allowed to fly with no registration numbers (tail numbers)?

14 CFR 45 subpart C governs the display of "nationality and registration marks".

14 CFR 45.21 says:

  Except as provided in §45.22, no person may operate a U.S.-registered aircraft unless that aircraft displays nationality and registration marks in accordance with the requirements of this section and §§45.23 through 45.33.

Section 45.22 gives some exceptions for "exhibition and antique" aircraft, and for aircraft of unusual design that may need an alternative marking scheme.

I presume there is another regulation, or international agreement, requiring that foreign-registered aircraft must also display their registration marks, but I haven't found it yet.

As to which aircraft have to be US-registered in the first place, see 14 CFR 47.  It's a bit complicated.

The US military is generally not bound by FAA regulations (though they may choose to follow some of them), see How much jurisdiction does the FAA have over military aircraft?.


How much is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner affected by teething troubles now, one year after commencing commercial operations?

You can get a rough idea by searching B788¹ on AvHerald.

Airlines do report technical problems² to their overseeing aviation safety board (in India it is, somewhat unusually, part of the civil aviation authority, DGCA; in most countries it is a separate agency, e.g. NTSB in USA). And those publish them.

Also for technical problems, aviation safety board of country of manufacture would be consulted, so NTSB should know about most technical problems of B787 and it should be possible to find them in their bulletins.

The Aviation Herald collects such reports from various sources. Only incidents that occur in flight get reported and only “interesting” subset of them, but if there were any serious problems with a type, they would come up.

Further if some problem requires mitigation steps to be taken, the civil aviation authorities publish airworthiness directives, that describe steps airlines must take (and under which conditions and until when) to be permitted to operate the aircraft. Since Boeing is based in USA, any airworthiness directive regarding it would most likely be first published by FAA and usually taken over by aviation authorities in other countries.

As far as I know, the batteries were the only serious issue of B787 that required immediate modification throughout the fleet. There are many small ones, like any aircraft, but there does not seem to be anything else that would be significantly more common or serious than on other types.

¹ AvHerald lists aircraft by their ICAO identifiers in the article titles (and full name in the text). The ICAO identifiers distinguish the series, so Boeing 787-8 gets B788.

² Those that affect safety. So non-working in-flight entertainment would not have to be reported, but a short-circuit in it should be.


What is the difference between Jet Wash and Jet Blast?

Jet Blast is the force or wind generated behind a jet engine, particularly on or before takeoff when high/full power is set, but also when the aircraft is taxiing.

When an object moves through air (or some other medium, e.g. a spoon through nutella), air is disturbed. This disturbance or wake is known as wake turbulence. It can also be called jet wash.

The difference is that jet blast is only because of engines. Jet wash or prop wash or wake turbulence is because the airplane moves through air.

If Mr Kevin Fast runs at say 100 mph doing this (see picture below), you can notice significant wake turbulence, although the engines are off and there is no jet blast.


Do ETOPS requirements vary between passenger, cargo, and non-revenue flights?

The ETOPS requirement is pretty much the same for all aircraft irrespective of usage as long as its under parts 121 or 135, as noted in the FAA InFO 07004, New ETOPS Regulations:

  The new ETOPS rules are now applicable to:

  Part 121

  • All two-engine airplanes more than 60 minutes flying time from an adequate airport (at a one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air).

  • All passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines and more than
  180 minutes flying time from an adequate airport (at a one-engine-inoperative
  cruise speed under standard conditions in still air).

  Part 135

  • All multi-engine turbine-engine powered airplanes (other than all-cargo
  operations with airplanes having more than two engines) more than 180
  minutes flying time (limited to 240 minutes flying time) from an airport
  meeting the requirements of part 135, §§ 135.385 or 135.393 and 135.219 at
  an approved one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in
  still air.

As far as differences are concerned, ETOPS is waived only in one case:

  The FAA ... however agree that for airplanes with more than two engines, passenger carrying operations may be excluded from the ETOPS maintenance program requirements and that all-cargo operations may be excluded from all ETOPS requirements.

The definition of ETOPS in the same document covers all aircraft except four engined all-cargo aircraft:

  Extended Operations (ETOPS) means an airplane flight operation other than an all-cargo operation in an airplane with more than two engines during which a portion of the flight is conducted beyond a time threshold identified in part 121 or part 135 of this chapter that is determined using an approved one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard atmospheric conditions in still air.

As far as non-revenue flights are considered, they are usually operated under Part 91, so the ETOPS rules don't apply. However, it is better to plan an ETOPS route for safety considerations (and to keep insurers happy).


Why scrap an A380 with only almost 10 years?

Well, the article you are referring to quite clearly states the reason for the decision to scrap the plane(s): negotiations with airlines to sell or lease were not successfull, so the only option was to scrap, or rather dismantle the plane.

Furthermore, the article presents the estimate by Dr. Peters Group that it would be able to generate some \$45 million  per aircraft by selling the useable components, and an additional  $480 000 / month by leasing the engines.

As a reference, the list price of a new A380 is (was) something like $ 430 million, the actual prices being, however, much lower. When you consider that a 10 year old plane most likely needs a considerable interior refurbishment, the decision made by Dr. Peters Group does not seem so strange, does it?


What is the height requirement for pilots in the Philippines?

There's no minimum height stated in the Philippines Civil Air Regulations (section 2.10.2.2) for any class of medical (you need a class 1 medical for a commercial license). However, Philippine Airlines apparently requires pilots to be at least 5'4" / 162cm.


How do carbureted and fuel injected engines compare in high altitude?

Disadvantages of fuel injection:

You need to do a business case.  It's possibly not worth the price.  The Bendix fuel injection system used on the Lyc is a fairly crude (by car standards) mechanical constant flow system, and the specific fuel consumption is perhaps 5-10% lower, maybe, at best, .4 lb/hp/hr vs .44 or so for a carb (cars are in the high .3s, diesels in the low .3s).  Lets be generous and say the fuel burn is 9 gal/hr instead of 10. At 100 hrs a year that's a $500-550 saving.  If you spend 5000 extra for the injected engine, it's 10 years just to break even.  Hopefully the fuel injected option is a lot cheaper than that, or you do enough flying to recoup the extra price much faster.

You prime by pressurizing the system with the fuel pump (using the mixture) to inject fuel pretty much where the primer would be on a carbureted engine; so far so good, but it's a somewhat more finicky procedure and easy to flood.

There's a little bit of a pucker factor issue because you have a high pressure fuel distribution system snaking around the engine (yes there are primer lines on a carb engine but they aren't pressurized) so there is a higher fire risk due to a fuel leak (it's the main reason carbureted engines are always updraft - nobody puts the carb on top).

When the engine is hot and sitting on hot day, you can get vapor lock in the distribution manifold and lines, sizzling away like a pan of bacon in the plenum of the cowling, making the engine really hard to start.  If you're on floats drifting away from a dock after pushing off and frantically trying to start the dang thing before you drift into the rocks, it becomes a big deal.

My personal opinion is the fuel burn reduction is not worth the costs, extra failure modes, and loss of simplicity and I prefer carburetors, for simple, low speed airplanes at least.


How does the Learjet cabin pressurisation system work?

If the pilots know the system, it isn't confusing at all.  It simply states that a solenoid valve closes causing the cabin pressurization system to go into manual mode and the pressurization controller cannot control the cabin pressure.

It is a feature of Learjets to prevent cabin pressurization issues in case the controller is faulty.

Since you reference the Payne Stewart accident you should also know there were other issues at play that did not cause the pressurization controller to fail.  It was one of the early Learjet 35's without an emergency pressurization system.


What is this fighter jet that flew over KJST?

It's an F/A-18 Super Hornet.

Defining characteristics:

Slightly angled twin vertical tail
Twin engine with little space between them (eliminating the F-14 and similar)
Almost straight trailing edge of the wings
Horizontal tail with significant sweep angle that also protrudes behind the engine exhaust
Massive wing strakes (thanks Dan Pichelman!) along the fuselage under the cockpit
The wing "notch", as noted by Ron Beyer in the comments

Also the shape of the horizontal tail excludes the YF-17:

Source

As mentioned by Penguin, the wing notch, together with the single curve leading edge extensions are the indicators that mark this aircraft as a "Super" variant (E-F, single seat and two-seat, respectively) rather than an earlier vanilla "Hornet" variant (A-C), as seen in this figure:

Source

Note also the less round profile of the horizontal tail, like the one seen in OP's photo.


What would happen if a pilot were to use the parking brakes after touchdown in order to slow down?

This question appears to have an implicit assumption: that the parking brake would provide more deceleration than is available from normal braking. This is not generally the case.

A much greater worry for pilots than insufficient braking is actually excessive braking - to the point that the wheel locks up and skids. A skidding tire provides much less braking than a rolling one, and also quickly acquires a flat spot. Even on dry pavement, maximum braking would require an anti-skid system to remain effective; consider a 757 and a Mig-29, each of which blew out their tires when their anti-skid systems failed.

Note also that in small planes without complex braking systems, the parking brake merely maintains the pressure that is in the brake lines at the time it's applied. The parking brake would have no effect if the pilot were not already on the brakes, and would not be able to add any additional braking than the pilot could otherwise apply.


How can we recover from a tailplane stall?

Lets start with the very basic concepts....

In most aircraft, the Centre of Gravity (cg) is somewhat forward of the wing or mainplane Centre of Pressure. The exact distance between the cg and the Centre of pressure will depend on aircraft loading, configuration, thrust setting and drag. However, cg forward of the Centre of Pressure produces a nose-down pitching moment. The horizontal stabilizer, or tailplane, then provides a downward force to overcome this normal, nose-down, pitching moment.
The tailplane behaves as an ‘upside down’ wing and operates with negative Angle of Attack (AOA) as shown in Figure 1

Positive and Negative Angle of Attack

Figure 1 - Positive and Negative Angle of Attack

If the horizontal stabiliser becomes contaminated with ice, airflow separation from the surface can prevent it from providing sufficient downward force or negative lift to balance the aircraft and a nose-down pitch upset can occur.

When compared to an aircraft's mainplane, the horizontal stabiliser normally has a thinner aerofoil with a sharper leading edge. Differences in the ice collection efficiency or catch rate between the two surfaces means ice accumulates faster on the horizontal stabiliser and may form before any ice is present on the aircraft's mainplane.

Tailplane stall can occur at relatively high speeds, well above the normal 1G stall speed of the mainplane. Typically, tailplane stall induced by icing is most likely to occur near the flap limit speed when the flaps are extended to the landing position, especially when extension is combined with a nose down pitching manoeuvre, airspeed change, power change or flight through turbulence. Aircraft stall warning systems provide warnings based on an uncontaminated mainplane stall so during a tailplane stall induced upset there will be NO artificial stall warning indications, such as a stick shaker, warning horn or the mainplane or flap buffeting normally associated with a mainplane stall.

Tailplane Stall Aerodynamics

The horizontal stabiliser, or tailplane, of an aircraft is an aerofoil that provides a downward force to overcome the aircraft's normal nose-down pitching moment. The further forward the Centre of Gravity is from the Center of Pressure, the greater the nose down moment and, thus, the greater the amount of down-force that must be generated by the tailplane. This, in turn, requires a greater negative tailplane angle of attack (AOA). angle of attack (AOA).
[As shown in Figure 1, The tailplane is effectively an upside down aerofoil so an increase in negative tailplane AOA occurs with UP elevator movement or when the aircraft is pitching nose down.]
Accumulation of ice on the tailplane will result in disruption of the normal airflow around that surface and will reduce the critical (or stalling) negative AOA of the horizontal stabiliser.
Ice can accumulate on the tailplane before it begins to accumulate on the mainplane or other parts of the aircraft.
Flaps extension usually moves the mainplane Centre of Pressure aft, lengthening the arm between the Centre of Pressure and the cg and increasing the mainplane nose down moment. More down force is required from the tailplane to counter this moment, necessitating a higher negative tailplane AOA.
Flap extension, especially near the maximum extension speed, increases the negative tailplane AOA due to the increase in downwash, as shown in Figure 2
Increasing the power setting on a propeller driven aircraft may, depending on aircraft configuration and flap settings, increase the downwash and negative tailplane AOA.
When the critical negative AOA of the horizontal stabiliser is exceeded causing it to stall.
Tailplane stall drastically reduces the downward force it produces, creating a rapid aircraft nose-down pitching moment.

Effect of mainplane flap on downwash

Figure 2 - Effect of mainplane flap on downwash

On aircraft with reversible (unpowered) elevator, tailplane airflow changes caused by ice accretion may lead to an aerodynamic overbalance driving the elevator trailing edge down and pitching the aircraft nose down. This can occur separately from or in combination with the nose down pitching moment caused by tailplane stall. The yoke may be snatched forward out of the pilot’s hands and the control force required for the pilot to return the elevator to neutral or to a nose-up deflection can be significant and potentially greater than the pilot can exert.

now match with your recovery actions

You have no doubt with your 1st point.
The second point: You have to resist the nose down elevator movement. Once the tailplane is already stalled then you have to assume the elevator has already gone in down position to make your ac nose down. So you have to apply nose up elevator pressure.
You should not increase the airspeed cause it might make the situation worse. Cause in dive with increased airspeed is always difficult to maintain the aircraft control. And you might end up with overstressing the elevator which is not good at all in such condition.


Calculating thrust and required propeller size for a given engine power

This that follows isn't an accurate calculation, but may be useful as a starting point: let's say the mass of your plane is 23kg. That's a weight of 225 newton. You have to add 830 N for the pilot, so the total weight is 1055 N. Let's assume, also, that the best L/D of your airplane is 9 at 36 km/h = 10 m/s. In a glide, that would mean a sink speed of 10/9 = 1,11 m/s. The implied 'gravitational power' would be 1055 x 1,11 = 1171 watt. That would be the minimum power required for s/l flight at best L/D and for a 100% prop efficiency. In the real world you might need at least three times that power, around 3500 watt.

Now, concerning the relationship between prop size, power, and thrust, at 100% prop efficiency, you may use this formula for the stationary case (airspeed = 0):

(From Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_loading). Where P is the power in watts, T the thrust in newton, A the disk area of the propeller in sq. meters, and rho the air density in Kg/m3, around 1,22...


Do negative angles-of-attack create lift?

A symmetric airfoil will generate no lift at no angle of attack, and negative lift at a negative angle of attack. However, cambered airfoils are curved such that they will generate lift at small negative angles of attack.


How accurately do I need to maintain my altitude while VFR-on-top?

Considering, as a pilot, you should be able to maintain an altitude with Less than a 100 foot accuracy, I would say that you should be doing the same when VFR-on-Top. If you change (vacate) that altitude for any reason, you should let ATC know. They are still maintaining aircraft separation. They need to anticipate your current and future position. If it’s a brief departure from the previously reported altitude (say for instance, due to turbulence), reporting the discrepancy is not important if you return to the original altitude immediately. Though, you might want to give ATC and/or FSS a PIREP.


Is a cambered or symmetrical propeller airfoil more efficient?

Cambered airfoils are used on propellers as they create less drag for a given Cl than a similar symmetrical airfoil.

The primary use for uncambered or symmetrical airfoils is on flight surfaces that must provide lift in both directions equally well, as in a vertical tail or aerobatic aircraft wing. Propellers only provide forward lift or thrust (ground reverse is too little used to matter) so camber works better.


Evidently, they don't. The picture shows a fully aerobatic Pitts Special from 1966 with no visible wing twist.


How can one change the wingtip geometry to enhance the wingtip vortices?

You are not interested in wingtip vortices. For now you are barking up the wrong tree. For that tug idea to work, you need to focus on the trailing vortex which is a result of the whole wing, not the wingtip.
How to maximize trailing vortex intensity? Fly slow, use a small aspect ratio and create lots of lift. This means a heavy airplane with a high span loading, flying close to stall. Niceties like the spanwise lift distribution are much less important; all low aspect ratio wings will show an elliptical or nearly elliptical lift distribution anyways.
Next, position the following airplane right. Between the two vortex cores of the leading airplane you will find severe downwash. What goes up must go down. This is not only true for aircraft, but also for the air surrounding them. So any part of the following airplane needs to stay outside of the immediate wake. In order to maximize the recovery of the energy wasted in the leading airplane you need two following airplanes, one to the left and one to the right, and ideally both need to be specific to their side since both will fly in an asymmetric flow field. If you don't account for that by optimising wing twist and weight distribution, your rudder and ailerons on the following airplanes will do that, albeit less efficiently, just in order to stay inside the upwash part of the wake.
To answer what you asked: For maximum wingtip vortex intensity you need a steep gradient of lift at the tip. This means a spanwise lift distribution which peaks near the tip. Of course this is what a good airplane design will avoid at all cost, because it not only makes it less efficient, it also results in dangerous stall behavior.


Do I need to copy old entries to my new logbook?

My recommendation - don't copy over anything from your old logbook.  Just start your new logbook with your next flight or  other item that needs to be logged. You will simply have more than one logbook.

You don't need to carry your logbook with you while you are flying.  Pilot cert and medical is all that is required.  If you need to produce a record verifying that you are qualified for a particular type airplane, operation, etc., you can produce your record (logbook[s]) at a later time.


Is reducing V1 a viable option for pilots when the ASDA is shorter than the ASDR?

Yes it's a viable option, but it must be approved by the manufacturer.

Lowering V1 requires lowering the thrust as well. Because high thrust at a slow V1 means the rudder won't have enough control to counter the thrust asymmetry when an engine fails. Low thrust equals low Vmcg, which can be the lower-limiting factor for the V1.

This reduced thrust setting (derate) can't be overridden in case an engine quits.

It works for short runways and contaminated runways and may allow higher MTOW, see here:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/36068/14897
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/32290/14897

Another trick is the opposite: to increase the V-speeds (again, must be approved). It's called "improved climb". This only works if the limiting weight is the climb limit (not the field limit).

By increasing the V-speeds you get a better climb gradient for the same flap and thrust setting, i.e., there can be two sets of V-speeds for one flap setting, e.g., Flap 15, and Flap 15 Improved.

(Boeing)

RE: Is it really the case that a runway length does not affect V1?

Runway length affects V1 only indirectly and not always. In the takeoff performance calculation there isn't a graph or table to lookup that links length to V1. Headwind, cold weather, and high ambient pressure are some of the factors that make a runway longer than it actually is (performance wise).

The first step in performance planning is calculating the corrected length. From there there are three limiting weights: field, climb, and obstacle clearing. The lowest of the three will be the limiting weight of the day.

If the takeoff weight will be lighter than the lowest, then reduced thrust can be used to save on engine wear, for example.

Once the weight is known, then the V-speeds are checked. If the weight is between the climb and field limits, then the aforementioned improved climb calculation can be used (if approved). Likewise for the field limit and using derate.

In other words, the corrected length only affects one of the three weights: the field limit weight. Which may not be the limiting factor. If it is the limiting weight, then yes length affects V1, but it usually isn't for the big transport planes.


Do regulations permit an airliner be equipped with a radio transmitter which cannot be controlled by the crew?

All equipment on board needs to be interruptable, either by direct control input (turning it off) or via circuit breaker. This especially holds true for equipment that is capable of broadcasting or emitting radio waves, such as radio telephony equipment or the transponder.

If the transponder for any reason became damaged and started to send incorrect replies to ground interrogation, it needs to be shut off in order to not confuse ATC systems or other aircraft's TCAS. Electronic or electric systems also need to be shut down in case of eletrical fires or other safety hazards to the aircraft.


Is it appropriate (legal) to request practice instrument approaches in IMC?

Certainly you can request practice approaches in IMC on an IFR flight plan.  ATC will accommodate aircraft on a first come, first served basis. It is legal, and appropriate if ATC can accommodate it based on traffic (or noise or NOTAM restrictions).

Of course there will be some difficulty if you attempt to do practice approaches at Los Angeles (LAX) or New York (JFK). ATC would not likely accommodate this at these or similarly busy high performance aircraft airports. But again, unless it was otherwise restricted (e.g., noise abatement requirements or NOTAM restrictions) you can certainly request this type of IFR/IMC handling.


BLEED FAULT lamp illumination under various conditions

The question is quite broad but here's my understanding..

  However, when there is an emergency condition e.g. engines are lost/off/unavailable (i.e. no generators) and also no APU possible, should there be any bleed fault?

No, since there is no fault (as you've listed). The bleeds are in the correct config and there is no disagreement between the valve and the switch. There is just no pressure to the system. You will get a 'Bleed Off' indication if your switch is on with no pressure to the valve(type dependant). Also you will get a pack off indication - if you've got the bleeds set to feed the packs.

  I know that you have things like built-in autotest stuff that goes on before the computers are powered, but surely when the aircraft is on batteries/emergency power, should there be any bleed faults?

As I said above you wont get faults, but you may get indications that the bleeds are off.