What is the difference between Vno and Va

Va limits G loads resulting from pilot input of maximum control deflection to limit load.  Vno limits G loads caused by vertical gusts over 30 ft/sec, without pilot input, to limit load.

In other words, Va protects you from bending the wings from pulling too hard, and Vno protects you from bending the wings from going too fast through bumps.


Why would a pilot use ailerons for countering asymmetric thrust in mid-flight?

This AOPA article "PROFICIENT PILOT LAZY-RUDDER SYNDROME" written about this incident, presents an interesting point of view on the matter, that basically good design and complacency leads to little regular rudder use so in emergencies its initially over looked.

  This pilot might have been affected by "lazy-rudder syndrome," the
  reluctance to use a rudder to the extent dictated by given
  circumstances. Some believe that this reflects a general decline in
  basic stick-and-rudder skills. A commonly observed symptom of this is
  lowering the right wing during initial climb after takeoff to
  incorrectly compensate for a single-engine airplane's left-turning
  tendency.


How much does it cost to learn to fly in the UK, and what restrictions are there?

My recommendation is: Join a glider club. This limits the expense and puts you into contact with many like-minded people. Make sure the club has several gliding instructors, so you will have enough chance for training lessons.

Did you try the UK gliding club finder yet?

I prefer gliders over powered aircraft because they expose you to the weather and the laws of aerodynamics much more directly. Also, the expenses per hour are much lower. At most clubs, you can expect to pay around £20 per hour to hire a glider, around £30 for an aerotow launch and around £8 for a winch launch.


What were the common crew ranks on WWII US Navy flying boats and bombers?

The Navy did operate some large aircraft, notably the PB4Y-1 Liberator and PB4Y-2 Privateer, variants of the B-24 Liberator. This was a late-war addition, the first being delivered in 1944 with the majority being delivered after the war. It was difficult to find crew compositions - the best bet I had was searching for reports of crashes based off of this list, but the newspaper clippings I found did not mention any crews.
There was a post-WWII (1950) shoot-down of a Navy PB4Y-2 by the Soviets and the article does have the list of the crew members that went down, but without the crew positions (notes added based off of information here. This was an electronic intelligence flight, but the crew ranks would have been similar for the flight crew at least. Note: Navy enlisted have ranks and rates, rates being associated with their profession and as such will often be more difficult to determine where there is little information.

LT Howard W. Seeschaf

LT John H. Fette

LTJG Robert D. Reynolds

ENS Tommy L. Burgess (Ensign/O-1)

AT1 Frank L. Beckman (Avionics Electronic Technician)

AL3 Joseph J. Bourassa (Aviation Electronics Man)

AD 1 Joseph H. Danens (Aviation Machinist's Mate)

CT3 Edward J. Purcell (Communications Technician)

AN Joseph N. Rinnier (Airman)

AD 1 Jack W. Thomas (Aviation Machinist's Mate)


What is the power rating of the ground power unit for Bombardier Dash 8 Q400?

Specific information about requirements is difficult to find. However there is some information that is readily available concerning the Q400 and available ground power units.

The Q400 can start its engine with the onboard batteries, thus the necessary power requirement would not be nearly as big as with the A320 series.
Ground Power Units are usually supplied in 7,5, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180kVA configurations
The Q400 is listed to have two TRUs which can output maximum of 300A 28VDC from a 115VAC (~73A) source. Source: Q400 Eletrical This would equal to a 90kVA Ground Power Unit, which according to Power Systems International provides 72A.
The Q400 has one 45kVA electrical generator per turbojet.
According to the Q400 Electrical document the Q400 has 24-volt NiCad batteries; Main and auxiliary, which both total to 80Ah.
The same document also states that the Q400 External Power Protection Unit does not monitor amperage, thus will not monitor total power. Some other system related with engine starting will most likely still monitor total power.
Aviation New Zealand provides the following details:

  "Small business jets fitted with 115 V 3 phase systems may be supplied by lower
  power units, typically 7.5 kVA and 15 kVA. Aside from over-power limits, all other
  parameters are likely to be similar to the above. " above=minimum 45kVA (as according to the document is specified in
  ISO 6858:1982 (E): Aircraft Ground Support Electrical Supplies – General
  Requirements;)

Based on these details I think that the Q400 does not have specific external power requirements. Most likely a minimum of 7.5kVA is still recommended, as that is the lowest powered GPU I could find. However you might end up charging the batteries first, as the 7kW from the GPU might not be enough to start the engines. A 30kVA generator with 150% overload rating for 60 seconds is also most definitely enough since it can provide the exact 45kVA that is provided by the generators already in the engines of the Q400.

The best guestimate calculation I could come up of what the engines need to be started is:

  A320 CFM56 provides about 30000hp max, while the PW100 provides about
  5000HP
      The CFM56 is started by a APS3200 APU, which provides 447hp, of which about 330hp can be used by the compressor equaling to about
  240kW.
      Based on the hp difference of about 15%, we will assume the PW100 requires
      only 15% of that power to start, which would be 36kW or ~40kVa.
      Of course not all of the 240kW provided by APS3200 would be required for a     CFM56 to start, so I'm pretty confident that a Q400 engine will start with a 30kVa GPU.

I think in the end it might come up to the question of using the batteries more, thus them needing more maintenance. NiCd usually rated to 1500-2000 recharge cycles, on Q400 and aircraft batteries it is most likely even lower.


Which commercial aircraft can perform a parallel engine start?

The main reason behind this capability is that the Boeing 787 starts its engines entirely on electrical power generated by the APU's VFSG (Variable Frequency Starter Generators) vs relying on APU bleed air to start the engines. Thus there isn't the typical drop in pneumatic pressure caused by the pneumatic starters on regular jetliners.
See 787 No-Bleed Systems for reference.

The Airbus A-340 can start both engines on a wing at the same time (1 & 2 then 3 & 4) as described here.


Can windshield washer fluid be used to deice small airplanes?

The short answer is, you should not use windshield wiper fluid.

TKS fluid and Windshield wiper fluid are very different things first and most importantly windshield wiper fluid has no FAA approval for this kind of operation (hence the price difference). You can find a full list of de-ice fluid for ground deicing of small aircraft in table 1 of AC 135-17. AC 135-17 also provides the FAA's suggestions on small craft ground de-icing in general.

TKS fluid is not for deicing aircraft on the ground it is for in-flight fluid based FIKI systems and is pumped out of various ports and flows over the wings/surfaces. It prevents the build up of ice in flight. For ground deicing, you use FPD/ADF fluid which is a thick viscus fluid that is often sprayed on the aircraft. Ground based deicing is intended to last from the aircraft from the gate (or other static position) until airborne and thus the FIKI system can be used. it also may prevent the build up of things like snow and ice while taxing.

The reason your POH says little if anything about de-icing is because neither the Dakota or the Cessna you mention are certified for flight into known icing, thus if icing conditions prevail on the ground they more than likely prevail in the air and you are not going anywhere anyway. The typical use case of de-icing a small aircraft is getting it out for the day after outdoor storage over night during snow, freezing rain, or enough frost build up to be an issue. If the temp is warming and icing no longer prevails the aircraft may still be contaminated. In this case you would use FDS liquid to clear the surface (and possibly a brush for any heavy snow build up). Many airports will have this on hand at the FBO.

You should avoid warm water as it can freeze again if the temperature is low enough.

This question is worth reading over as well.


Why do T- tail airplanes have a shorter vertical stabilizer?

Two reasons:

T-tail design is often imposed on designs with twin engines mounted at the aft fuselage. This means they have a small moment arm in the yaw direction, the vertical tail is dimensioned to compensate for engine failure. The further away form centreline the engine is mounted, the higher the yawing moment that the remaining engine exerts upon engine failure.
The horizontal stabiliser at the top of the vertical stab functions as an aerodynamic barrier, like a winglet does. This prevents a vortex from streaming off of the top of the vertical tail when yawing, and thereby increases the effectivity of the vertical tail surface. This effect was researched in NACA TN 2907, at five different locations and three different spans:

The graph below shows calculated effective increase of aerodynamic aspect ratio, as function of where on the fin the horizontal tail is located. If completely at the top or at the bottom, the aerodynamic aspect ratio is about 50% higher than when at the centre, resulting in increase of the lift curve slope of the fin of roughly 15%.

With a T-tail, the horizontal stabiliser at the top functions as an aerodynamic barrier, while the fuselage at the bottom end provides some barrier function as well. Depending on the local fuselage circumference and shape of course.


Given the same engine, why install a gearbox on a turboprop but not on a turbofan?

The bigger the diameter, the lower the optimum speed. Generally, fan and propeller blades should run at a high dynamic pressure, but still at subsonic speeds to avoid the higher losses involved with supersonic flow. Since the tip will be the part with the highest speed, and propellers have bigger diameters than fans, propellers run at lower speeds.

The high pressure compressor and turbines of an airliner engine will run at above ten thousand RPM, while the propeller wants to run at about 1800 to 2200 RPM. The propellers on the Tu-95 even run at only 750 RPM. Both the fan and the propeller are powered by separate low pressure turbines which also have an optimum speed, and the faster the turbine runs, the more torque it will produce for a given size. For that reason, the low pressure turbine and the shaft of a big airliner engine run at between 2500 and 4000 RPM, and the turbine of the PT-6, a classical turboprop engine, at 30.000 RPM. Since power is torque times RPM, a faster running shaft will be lighter than one running at low speed, so the speed is only reduced directly at the propeller mount.

A fan's optimum speed is between that of the compressor and the propeller and would ideally also need a gearbox, but here the transmitted power is so high that a compact gearbox will be hard to design. Even if it runs at 98% efficiency, it will produce waste heat in the order of several hundred kilowatts in case of a big airliner engine. Some small engines with just a single turbine use gearboxes already (e.g. the Lycoming ALF507), and now the next generation of efficient fan engines are also introducing gearboxes. But so far, most engine designs have preferred to run the fan faster than what would be ideal. Note that the tip speed of a modern, ungeared fan is already well above Mach 1.

Their bigger diameter makes propellers more efficient. The more air mass is involved in thrust creation, the higher the propulsive efficiency will be. Fans need to be smaller precisely because they will run with the speed of the low pressure turbine, and to convert the available power into thrust, they need a much higher solidity ratio, which translates into a higher wetted surface, which increases friction losses.


Does the FAA or FSS check or authorise IFR flight plans?

The FAA's flight plan filing FAQ says that it's about formatting:

  Q: Will an FPL be automatically rejected or is that a manual function?

  A: ERAS automatically rejects an improperly formatted FPL. The Rejection (REJ) message usually includes information which identifies
  the error. The filer should correct the error and reenter the FPL.

That seems to be confirmed in this FAA ICAO Flight Planning Interface Reference Guide that goes into detail on computerized flight plan formats, filing etc. Section 3.7.2 lists all the possible reasons for the ERAS computer to return a REJ (rejected) message, and they're all to do with formatting or invalid values, e.g. airspeed can't be zero.

To me, that makes sense: no one knows the equipment or capabilities of an aircraft except the person (or organization) submitting the flight plan. Even if the FAA had a database of every aircraft in the world, what happens if your GPS unit burns out and you want to file IFR using only standard IFR equipment (VOR, ILS)? Or you want to fly at a reduced (or increased) cruise speed for some mechanical or performance testing reason? The FAA couldn't possibly know if your submitted values are correct.

I don't know (and couldn't find out) if there's any situation where ERAM can't generate a flight strip even though the flight plan is accepted as valid. If it does happen, I suppose that would be a sort of secondary check.

As an aside, I was at an EAA IMC Club meeting last week and we discussed the new ICAO flight plan format (new to the US, that is!). A couple of controllers were there, and they said that you have to be careful about what equipment you put in your flight plan in case you get assigned something beyond the pilot's capabilities. For example, a Cirrus is PBN-capable and if you input all the equipment correctly in the flight plan then you may get a complex SID rather than just departure vectors. If you aren't familiar and comfortable with the avionics then you might get yourself in trouble, so it would be better to file only basic avionics. That kind of decision isn't something the FAA could or should validate.


Which countries allow pilots to fly over the age of 65 for International Part 135 Operations?

Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Senegal, and Ukraine

According to a 2006 ICAO report (mentioned also in this presentation) (emphasis mine),

  Nine States (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Senegal, and Ukraine) have no upper age limit, whereas fifty-five have an upper age limit higher than 60 years, ranging from 62 to 72 years.

This, of course, applies only to domestic flights, not international flights, as I imagine you have already read about:

  The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft, subject to conditions. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:

  2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.

  2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.

Note that the ICAO typically gives constituents recommendations, not necessarily enforceable laws. Those are generally up to the countries themselves, which is why these nine are able to not have upper age limits.

I wanted some confirmation on the original list from something more recent, so I checked out a few sources. I was only able to find information for two.

Australia

From the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, it is noted that the ICAO age limits for pilot in command (PIC) and co-pilot are not relevant in Australian domestic flights, and seems to imply that age does not affect the ability to hold a pilot's license.

Canada

The best I could find was this article from The Globe and Mail, originally from 2009 but possibly updated in 2012.

  There is no upper age limit to acquire or renew a pilot licence in Canada - all you have to do is log the hours, complete the training and pass the medical exams, when necessary.


Can the FAA CPL 2-hour cross country flight requirement include stops?

Affirmative.  That flight will have to be part of the dual training time required for the airman certificate.

And, yes, you can do a stopover during the flight; the experience requirement does not prohibit it.


IATA issues duplicate airline codes to regional airlines where the codes are not likely to overlap, from Wikipedia:

  Controlled duplicates are issued to regional airlines whose destinations are not likely to overlap, so that the same code is shared by two airlines.

This happens because IATA uses a 2-letter code for for airlines which has a limited range of available codes. Since NCA doesn't operate a passenger service in the same region as Fika Salaama, it would be very unlikely to confuse the two.


Why does the A350-900 call out to retard at 20 feet above the runway?

Why is it like this and not like normally at 0 feet?

Normally is not 0 feet: all Airbus (maybe with the exception of the A380, that might have a longer flare) have a "Retard" call at 20ft, not at 0ft. From the A320 Flight Crew Training Manual:

  As a reminder, the ”RETARD” aural alert will sound. In flare, this aural alert will occur at 20 ft, except in the case of autoland, where it occurs at 10 ft.


For the 737 Combi, How did changing the proportions of the passenger vs cargo areas work?

The Boeing 737QC (Quick Change) is a Boeing 737-200 which featured a 134 in × 87 in (340 cm × 221 cm) freight door just behind the cockpit. The floor was strengthened and allowed for palletized seating for faster configuration changes between cargo and passenger flights. A switch using a system designed by Falcon Aviation in Sweden allowed the seats to be removed in 20 minutes. Each seat row would roll forward to the cargo door, then slide out into a container for storage. The container would be rolled away and cargo loaded into the space where the seats used to occupy.

The video below shows how the conversion system created by Falcon worked.

Good luck creating a toy hauler.


Versalog already told the core of the thing. Most prop aircraft which are approved for flights into known icing conditions have such boots to remove the ice from the wings leading edge.
Those boots are either inflated manually whenever you need them (by the press of a button of course), at regular intervals or automatically whenever ice is detected.

Check this picture, the black thing is the boot on a Dash 8's wing:

Link


What is the normal descent rate for airliners?

There are a few possibilities, there's no way to know which is correct without more information:

There could have been an emergency on board. If someone is showing signs of a serious illness pilots will get the plane on the ground in a hurry to get the person medical attention as soon as they can. Or there could have been an issue with the airplane or a passenger, like someone very drunk and unruly in first class, say
As @falstro said it could have been a slam-dunk approach, where a controller directs airplanes to do steeper descents to solve sequencing issues. Pilots know if they say "unable" that they probably won't get another approach for awhile, so they'll accept a steep descent to get on the ground sooner
It could have been a request of the pilots for a non-emergency reason, like them trying to make up scheduling time, or to stay within fuel limits


When outbound from an IAF on an approach to a procedure turn, may the pilot choose whether to use time or distance?

Using DME only is perfectly acceptable the FAA does not actually specify how exactly to execute the procedure turn but where and at what altitude. This is covered in the AIM:

  5-4-9 Procedure Turn and Hold−in−lieu of Procedure Turn. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
  reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate
  or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is
  a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless
  cleared byATC for a straight−in approach. Additionally, the procedure
  turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is
  depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the
  final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach
  from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a
  minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound
  course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified
  in the profile view. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern
  direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg
  length/timing must not be exceeded.

The guidance is pretty straight forward that you need to be at the prescribed altitude and within the "remain within" distance but the type and execution of the maneuver is largely up to the PIC as they go on to elaborate.

  On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering
  side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is
  made.Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type
  procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced
  and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot
  (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the
  options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the
  teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree, 260 degree course reversal.
  Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where
  the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the
  pilot on the non−maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept
  the outbound course ensures remaining within protected airspace. Some
  procedure turns are specified by procedural track.These turns must be
  flown exactly as depicted

The standard 1 minute timing is a convenient way to execute the maneuver for light aircraft since 1 minute at approach speed is usually ~1.5 miles (assuming a 90 Kt maneuver/approach speed) and will often keep you in the protected area.

Depending on how you read the regulation in reality a pilot may only use distance, although you may use time as an estimate and helper to execute the maneuver.


Why is a higher bypass ratio more efficient at lower speeds?

Because bigger reaction mass with lower speed carries away less energy for the same momentum.

To produce thrust the engine applies force to the exhaust gasses and air. This force accelerates the air. To produce thrust $F$, the engine has to impart momentum $p = \frac{F}{t}$ per unit of time on the air. Momentum is proportional to mass and first order of speed. $p = mv$ where $m$ is mass of the gasses (reaction mass) affected by the engine per unit of time and $v$ is speed of those gasses.

The gasses however also take away some kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is also proportional to mass, but also to second order of speed. $E_k = \frac12mv^2$.

This energy has to be provided by the engine. Since the fuel can only provide so much energy (it's heating value) per unit of mass, an engine that needs less energy needs less fuel. And that is achieved by moving more air. Which means higher bypass ratio for jet and bigger propeller for engines with propellers.

Note, that this does not say high-bypass engine would be more efficient at slow speed than at high speed. Because it isn't. All jet engines are more efficient at high speed. This is because the power the engine produces is $P = Fv$. So at high speed, larger part of the power output is the useful work moving the aircraft.

In high-bypass engine the maximum power output of the fan is limited though (similar to propeller), so compared to a turbojet the difference in efficiency is higher at low speed.


How do I find all the frequencies for my local TRACON?

There are sector maps available, and each facility updates them periodically.  They are published.  My understanding is that sectors are joined and separated frequently, even based on the minute to minute workload.
(I have a set of charts showing High, Low Center and tracon sectors. I haven't found a public source for those charts yet.  Here is a set of maps, but I would like to provide direct FAA maps.  https://ivaous.org/academy/index.php/controllers/procedures-and-organization  )

The chart supplement and AFD are good places for common frequencies, however most facilities have additional frequencies.  They might be used for certain events, emergencies, when VIPs are being handled, during extreme congestion and when there are problems with the primary frequencies.  I do not know of a good source for those backup frequencies, which is published.

There are radio reference listings of ATC frequencies, however, they are not always accurate.  While the may show the station frequency assignments, they may not show the true facility usage.

As an example, here is a compilation of Boston Air Route Traffic Control Sectors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Air_Route_Traffic_Control_Center#Low_Altitude_Sectors_2

Addendum:  FAA Facility Transmitting Authorization (FTA) would be the document, prepared for each facility, which would list all the frequencies that facility is authorized to use.  The genesis and use of the FTA is covered in this FAA Order: https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/6050_32b_with_chg_1_and_2_incorporated.pdf

  For FAA-owned systems, this number will be the Facility Transmitting
  Author ization (FTA) number assigned by FAA Spectrum Engineering. For
  non-federally-owned systems, this number will be the Federal
  Communications Commission (FCC) license number or “call sign” assigned
  by the FCC.  For military-owned systems, this number will be the
  National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
  serial number assigned by the FTIA.

So if you are trying to obtain frequencies for a military base, which may be working with local FAA facilities, you will also need to get the NTIA/FTIA data.

The FTA is public information, but I am unaware of an Order or publically accessible database for the FTA.  When I see an avionics inspector later today, I will ask her if she knows where FTAs can be looked up.


Why do most biplanes have their top wing slightly forward of the lower wing?

Placing the top wing ahead of the bottom wing in biplanes is called (positive) stagger. It is mostly used in small biplanes and improves pilot vision.

In order to accommodate a variation of pilot weights and to reduce accelerations in maneuvers, it is advisable to place the pilot very close to the center of gravity. If the upper wing were in the same lengthwise location, it would obstruct the forward and upward vision of the pilot.

Why is upward vision so important? Because of the bank angle, in turns you need to look up in order to see what is ahead. A high mounted wing right at the center of gravity would rob the pilot of forward vision in turns.

Therefore, in small biplanes the top wing is moved forward while the bottom wing is moved back correspondingly, so lift is created close to the center of gravity, but the top wing is out of the way.

Large biplanes do not need this arrangement because the pilot sits ahead of the wing. The Antonov 2 below is an example (source):

In many designs, the center wing has a cutout at the rear in order to give the pilot a better field of view. Even more interesting is what had to be done to improve pilot vision in parasol monoplanes. The Focke-Wulf 56 used slight wing sweep in combination with a reduced root chord in order to reduce the obstruction to the pilot's field of view of the rear wing center (picture source).


Does cargo balance affect fuel efficiency in commercial aviation?

Positioning cargo such that the center of gravity of the plane is within a certain range is essential, but is there any advantage to having the center of gravity closer to some ideal point within the acceptable envelope?

There is no one ideal point for all large cargo aircraft as defined by a center of gravity (cg) expressed as the percent of the mean aerodynamic chord (%mac). There are a lot of aircraft model and operational variations. The general idea for large aircraft like the 747 is to put the c.g. as far aft as possible while keeping undesirable operational characteristics within reason. The farther aft the c.g. is the lower the fuel burn because as you move the c.g. aft (toward the center of lift of the wing), the pitch down moment of the wing lift decreases and thus the tailplane has to supply less downward force, which means there will be less overall drag and fuel efficiency goes up (the aerodynamicists here can probably say that more succinctly).

The operating envelopes of the airplane define how far aft you are allowed to put the c.g. There are multiple constraints insofar as determining the aft most limit. Two obvious ones are controllability in engine-out situations and in turbulence.

One doesn't always try to put the c.g. just forward of the aft limit, though. There can be other considerations. For example, on 747-100/200/400 aircraft at typical weights, the aft c.g. limit is 33.0%mac, but a common aiming point for the zero fuel weight c.g. is 26.6%mac. While I don't know all the reasons for using 26.6%, one is that that is the location of the wing gear, so if for some reason you couldn't extend the body gear, the aircraft might sit on its tail when landing depending on how much fuel you had left and how far aft of 26.6% you are.

Loadmasters for a given aircraft are a good source for what the usual aiming point is for the c.g.

  Would additional control surface drag be caused by cargo loaded right on the edge of operating standards?

Yes, if you had the c.g. up against the forward limit, the tailplane would have to generate a greater downward force than otherwise, and that would mean more drag. Also, on wide-body aircraft, if you were up against the maximum lateral imbalance moment, you're going to have aileron drag that you otherwise would not have.

  Would finding an optimal loading be computationally complex?

Not really, especially if its the case that all pallets/containers are going to be off-loaded at a single destination. If there's more than one off-loading destination it gets more complicated since you'd want those pallets getting off first to be positioned such that you could move them to the cargo door without having to move pallets not getting off.

There might be other constraints as well. For example, let's say you had a 30,000 lb pallet to be put aboard a 747-100/200/400. The only area that can take that kind of weight in a single size M pallet is over the wing box. That limits you to using one side of three side-by-side position pairs. Let's say you put that pallet on the left side of the aft most side-by-side position pair. That's fine, but you have now limited the right side to a max of 6250 lb.

You also have to ensure that you don't violate cumulative loading limits from the front of the aircraft to the middle and from the aft to the middle, and a few other things besides.

Computer programs for doing weight & balance for large cargo aircraft have been able to handle all of these things since the 1980s. I wrote a DOS application in 1988 that did all these things and was eventually used by three cargo carriers. It was finally phased out in 2016.

The algorithm it used was straight forward. Sort the pallets by weight and allocate from heaviest to lightest. Put the heaviest in the position closest to the target c.g. Then put the next pallet either aft or forward of the previous depending on which will produce a c.g. closest to the target, and so forth. After each position allocation, it checked to see if any limitation had been violated. If so, it reallocated until there were no violations. Even on slow computers of the DOS era, it never took more than a few seconds to complete.

  How many cargo pallets/containers fit in a large cargo aircraft?

Depends on the size of the containers and the size of the aircraft. There are a lot of choices. Go to this ULD sizes page to see common sizes. For 747s carrying civilian cargo, size code M is probably the most used on the main deck, with either 29 or 30 positions. For military cargo size code B was that size I mostly saw on the 747 main deck, usually with 33 aboard.

The lower holds on 747s had a lot of variability insofar as the ULDs used down there.

If you want to explore 747 cargo position configurations, go to this 747 weight & balance page. The POSITION CONFIG menu will allow you to select different configurations between 30, 29, and 33 main deck positions. After selecting a configuration, you can scroll down to see the arrangement (or press F6, either the key of the left nav button).


How big is the radar cross section of a modern glider?

Smaller than that of a normal aircraft, but very far away from a VLO/stealth one.
The RCS of various light aircraft has been measured and published here: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a029262.pdf
The RCS of the human body is on the order of -20 to -5 dBsm: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7027834
The glider can't hide the human inside. Extrapolating light aircraft RCS down to a glider, my best guess for the lowest-RCS gliders would be on the order of -10 to -5 dBsm, and no less than -12 dBsm or 0.05 m² due to the pilot.
The reason is that a glider still contains a lot of non-radar-transparent parts, which will reflect radar frequencies and produce a sizable RCS.
It doesn't take much to produce a radar reflection. -40 dBsm corresponds to a sphere just 1.4 cm in diameter. Anything that contains metal or water will reflect radar. Even small metal or flesh objects will produce a significant return.
To get seriously low RCS, such as -20 to -30 dBsm, below a bare human, where "real stealth" is considered to begin, you need to specifically work for it, intentionally reflecting the waves in the wrong direction, not avoiding reflections.
In particular, you need to ensure the reflection is directed into specific lobes. This isn't best achieved by radar transparency - in fact, both the F-22 and even non-VLO fighters like the F-16 intentionally coat their canopies with gold to make them radar-reflective, so as to avoid random reflections from the objects inside.


Are commercial aircraft designed with a shared data network?

Aircraft do have LAN Networks for their sensors to minimize wiring (and consequently weight), however I would assume these are closed circuit networks and NOT connected to the IFE system.

In terms of the FMS system on aircraft according to this they do have databases however I dug into it a bit and it seems that based on this walk through on updating you need to physically connect to the device to change that database (for Rockwell Collins Equipment). It also seems that the Honeywell FMS computers have a similar way of updating via USB. While I cant say for certain it does not seem the FMS is on any kind of network aside from its own.

The big question is autopilot/FBW systems and can they be overridden or tampered with. It seems that Boeing-Honeywell has a patent on some remote flying systems but has not yet implemented it on any aircraft. I am still looking for some solid evidence that the systems have a point of access on the network. It is clear that they can be altered if you can physically connect to them for update purposes. Keep in mind you would have to load them with false data.

This seems to be the autopilot for the 777 however Rockwell Collins does not seem to allow you to get the info on it very readily. Maybe someone else on here can comment on how its set up.

This nice paper overview of FBW systems on a 777, in section 11.4.4 lists the connections the FBW system has to other systems on the plane. While this is by no means an official document (at least I don't think so) it does not list the IFE system as a connection and is pretty clear on the fact that everything connects over the ARINC 629 style data busses.

Edit:

It does appear that ethernet technology is making its way onto aircraft however it seems that the tech still uses ARINC Specification 664. However page 2 of this spec documents seems to imply that through a "gateway" the system is connected to the "internet". However Page 38 clearly states

  Although AFDX/ARINC 664 is a closed network, UDP port numbers
  should be selected from the Dynamic/Private range of numbers. The reason
  for this is that there could be potential conflicts with the standard port
  number assignments when a gateway is used to communicate between the
  AFDX network and the Internet

So it is connected to the internet but the flight control systems are on a closed network. They also advise you to use the private range of ports to avoid any possible conflicts. Here is another good paper on the technology. It does seem that they are moving towards some internet like devices on aircraft but it also seems that they will remain closed networks. Companies are looking to consume some modern tech for an age old application as its simpler and easier to use existing high speed bus technology than reinvent the wheel and make a new custom bus. Just because something has a router and ethernet cables does not mean its connected to the internet!


Why is this equation for TAS only valid for subsonic flow?

Because you didn't read the text in the Wikipedia page above that equation ;-)
That equation works for subsonic flow only because you have replaced the Mach number of the original TAS formula:
$$ \text{TAS} = a_0 M \sqrt{\frac{T}{T_0}} $$
with the formula of Mach number for subsonic flow:
$$ M = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\gamma - 1} \left[ \left( \frac{q_c}{p} + 1 \right)^\frac{\gamma - 1}{\gamma} - 1 \right]} $$
which exploit the simple form of Bernoulli's formula, working only for incompressible flows, i.e., subsonic flows. Check the Mach number and the Bernoulli formula pages for further details.


Is Flight Following in the USA directly equivalent to Basic Service in the UK?

Based on the UK Flight Information Services document that Dan helpfully provided in chat, it looks like they're different:

Basic Service

Available to IFR flights in class G
Available to VFR flights in class E and G
Provides information on "airspace activity that may affect your flight"
Pilot is free to manoeuvre as needed, unless otherwise "agreed" with ATC
Provided workload permitting

Flight Following

Not available to IFR flights
Available to VFR flights in any airspace where ATC has radar coverage
Provides information on airspace, traffic and weather
Pilot is free to maneuver as needed, unless otherwise instructed by ATC
Provided workload permitting

So the major differences seem to be:

Basic Service is available to IFR flights; Flight Following is not (it wouldn't make sense anyway)
Basic Service provides airspace information only, not traffic information; Flight Following provides both

The whole traffic vs airspace information thing is very confusing in the CAA doc. Read literally, there's no VFR service that offers both airspace and traffic advisories, but that makes no sense at all. I'm probably missing something, but reading that document makes me glad the US has kept it simple...


Two reasons that are really one reason. In short: Because lift.

In this case though, it's "to get rid of lift". The spoiler's job is to reduce the amount of lift the wing experiences. This can be done symmetrically, on both wings at the same time, to increase the rate of descent or keep an aircraft from lifting back off the ground when in ground effect, or in this case, it can be done asymmetrically, or only on one wing.

In order to turn, an aircraft has to create an imbalance of force, more on the side outside the turn, less on the inside of the turn. The wing to the inside of the turn needs to drop, but it doesn't really want to...it has lots of air pushing it up (when it doesn't, you will have a very bad day)!

The spoiler in this case is just acting as an extension of the aileron. By moving upward with the aileron itself, it spoils the airflow over the top of the wing a bit, reducing the lift, and causing the wing to drop a bit, raising the other wing. It also acts as a larger surface area for the incident airflow to impart force on, which also pushes the wing down.

On the other side, the aileron is doing the opposite, increasing the wing's effective camber, at least near the tip, and increasing lift. Flaps do the same, but also are usually used symmetrically to increase lift on both wings. In some airplanes, you can have a 'flaperon', which can also be used as an additional control surface while also doing it's flap-thing.


How should this Bendix course deviation indicator from the '50s be read?

This is an early version of an HSI.  The heading (depicted by the airplane) is either set manually, or it's slaved to a remote compass.

Responding to the question as numbered:

Depicts wind correction angle when tracking a course.
To/From flag
Glide slope reference (too low)
Push to test the warning light.  Also push to illuminate while turning to adjust brightness.  This may light without a valid heading source from a remote compass/flux valve.  It may also be to indicate failure of an internal gyro if so equipped for heading source.
Depicts aircraft the heading


How many crew members load and offload luggage on an Airbus A380?

The Airbus Airport and Maintenance Planning documents note that:

  Actual times may vary due to each operator's specific practices, resources, equipment and operating conditions.

That being said, if everything is going smoothly, typically it's 2-3 operators per door.

One of the differences between an A380 and say a 767 is the number and size of containers. The rest is mostly the same. Below is a breakdown from a paper on the A320:

  The first operators' categorization that we had done was simple: belt loaders and cargo loaders, with reference to GSE. Usually, this is how airlines categorize their operators. Moreover, this categorization has a standard number of operators needed per GSE depending on its positioning:

  2 operators per Cargo Loader for the main cargo compartment;
  3 operators per Belt Loader for the main cargo compartment;
  2 operators per Belt Loader for the bulk compartment.

  However, this categorization is far too simple because there are more people than cargo and belt loaders involved in the cargo handling, for example tractor drivers and container loaders at the airport terminal. For this reason, Airbus ground handling operator's categorization has been used. This categorization divides the operators in:

  Semiskilled: loaders and cleaners.
  Skilled: bus drivers, refuelling staff, in general all equipment drivers.
  Highly skilled: boarding bridge operators, ramp agent, push-back operator.

(pegasus-europe.org)

As you can see from that paper, it's not just the number of operators at each door, it's a big system, combined with different hiring practices and different operators' methods, there is no one answer.

(Airbus)

Above shows an A380 schedule for a 90-minute turnaround since you seem interested in streamlining this process. Note the refueling start/finish and check this post. Passengers are typically boarded after the refueling is finished, otherwise it's a hassle that even includes alerting the fire service to be on standby.

Loading the cargo/passengers more quickly won't solve the A380 problems you asked about in recent posts.


Do large Airliners use full thrust when reversers are deployed?

Flight manual procedures and operators‘ policies notwithstanding, they would typically use full reverse thrust when the stopping performance requires so, and idle reverse thrust when not. The latter setting means less wear on the engines and lower noise. The former setting overrides these considerations when safety demands it.


Difference between ETA and On-Block time?

The Eurocontrol Lexicon can help here as well. The Estimated In-Block Time is defined as:

  The estimated time that an aircraft will arrive in-block.

(Eurocontrol)

This is not very helpful, but the definition for Actual In-Block Time is:

  The actual date and time when the parking brakes have been engaged at the parking position.

(Eurocontrol)

This time is relevant for gate availability because the aircraft is expected to be at its gate (or remote parking position) at this time.

The Estimated Time of Arrival is, as your quote says, a time where the aircraft is still in the air. This is relevant for Air Traffic Control because the number of aircraft that can fly an instrument approach to the destination airport at the same time is limited. If too many aircraft have a similar estimated time of arrival, some will have to hold in a pattern or are delayed on-route already.


What is the best or most popular way to reduce wing tip vortices on an ultralight operating at 600-800k Re?

For a triplane with very short span, it might be worth it to make a kind of end plate fin joining all three wings.  Problem is, the end plate itself will create a lot of drag, so it comes down to whether or not inhibiting the tip circulation with that sort of end plate gives a benefit that outweighs the drag of the plate itself.

If your triplane will cruise at high Cls (low speeds relative to stall) where the vortices are strong, the inhibition effect of the end plates may be net positive (like with winglets on jets).  If the thing will cruise and 2 or 3 times stall speed, I would expect that the drag of the plates cancels or outweighs the benefit.  Which is why it's not done very much even with all those biplanes out there where you'd think it's a no brainer to "wall off" the wing tips.

Beyond that, I'd suggest a triangular "Wittman type" wing tip ( Steve Wittman was a famous air racer, who developed these tips for the Tailwind) which is a good way of dissipating the tip circulation on low aspect ratio wings while providing a little extra area and span with minimum additional wing bending.  That could be the best bang for the buck for your short span application.  They were very effective on the Tailwind.


In light aircraft, non-instrument flight, apply (nearly) full aft elevator before beginning the takeoff roll or at some predetermined speed?

It's a matter of the conditions you are faced with.

The first instructor was teaching you soft/rough field technique, where the focus is getting as much weight off the nosewheel as soon as possible to minimize its rolling drag on a soft surface. Besides the drag on the nosewheel, the thrust line acting above the drag axis of the mains on soft ground tends to drive the nose down, so you need to compensate for that as well. The other thing is having the wings producing partial lift from the nose being high also helps reduce the effect of the soft ground.

You might also use this technique if the surface is firm but has a lot gravel, that can get sucked into the prop, and you want the prop as far away as possible while the airplane is moving slowly.  I'll start a run on firm surface with loose gravel with the nose held high but let it come down a bit as speed is gained and there is less tendency for the prop to pull rocks up into it.

Thing is, you need the nosewheel for steering control until the rudder becomes effective, so you give up a lot of potential directional control with tail down technique early in the takeoff, so you only use it to the extent you need to.  Besides directional control, the nose in the air condition is very draggy and can delay acceleration, actually extending the takeoff run.

There are basically 3 procedures that I follow:

Soft/rough field - tail low all though the take off to keep weight off the nose wheel and as much weight off the mains as possible.  You may use flap in this case when you wouldn't ordinarily for the same reason.  You stay in ground effect to accelerate before climbing.
Firm but short field - tail low late in the takeoff and rotating early so the airplane gets to flying speed already at its takeoff pitch attitude. This is to have the airplane lift off at the earliest possible point and may include use of flaps that aren't normally used.  You stay in ground effect to accelerate before climbing.
Normal takeoff - elevator neutral or only slightly nose up, for best steering control and acceleration until rotation at the normal rotation speed.

Students using different instructors always discover quite a bit of variation in techniques as instructors apply their personal preferences.  A perennial problem in the industry.


What purpose does a control area really serve related to managing air traffic flow?

The main purpose of controlled airspace is NOT to "streamline" traffic, but to protect traffic. Control areas are not there to "service air traffic service personnel", but to enforce certain rules upon the pilots.
In and around busy airports, the density of aircraft in the sky is relatively high, meaning there would be a relative high risk of collision if everyone were just flying around randomly. To mitigate this risk, various types of controlled airspace is established (control zones, terminal areas, control areas etc.)
Within controlled airspace, aircraft are subject to an ATC clearance, which more or less eliminates any risk of collision. Crucially, outside of controlled airspace, pilots can, essentially, fly pretty much however they want, and the only way to not hit another aircraft is if you happen to see it out the window.
Control areas are not just established around airports, but in any area where the density of air traffic is high. Typically, this means pretty much everywhere at higher levels, and around major airports at lower levels.


You can sail a seaplane, but there are a lot of considerations. For starters, it makes a big difference as to whether you're talking about a seaplane where the hull is in the water or a floatplane. A floatplane sitting up on its pontoons (floats) is more up in the wind, but it's also more susceptible to rough water because of its higher center of gravity.

My personal experience with sailing a floatplane was with a J-3 cub with an 85 horse engine on rivers and lakes. If we wanted to back onto the shore, we had to sail it since there was no reverse pitch propeller.

For purposes of explanation on how to do it, let's say that there's no wind, but we're on a river with enough current that the movement of the floatplane with the current when the engine is off gives the floatplane a wind relative to the water. Further let's say the river is flowing from east to west, and we want to back onto a beach on the north shore. We land and stop the engine upstream from the beach. As the floatplane drifts it will weathervane into the wind. Thus, with the controls neutralized, we'll be facing west and moving downstream in mid-river with the current, but not as fast the current because of the drag of the wind on the aircraft.

The rule of thumb is that you point the tail towards the shore you wish to get to. We do that by applying left rudder and right aileron. Thus we have increased the drag on the left wing, which will swing the nose left, and the left rudder will also swing the nose left. Thus the nose is now pointed a few degrees toward the left shore (south), the tail toward the right shore (north). The airplane will then sail to the right shore (north) relative to the direction the aircraft nose is pointing because the the aircraft is moving backwards relative to the water.

The trick in this instance is vary the control input to arrive at the downstream point you want. For practice, I used to have students sail to alternate sides of the river on Oregon's Willamette River downstream from the city of Eugene.


Why is the UAE the only country with two flag carrier airlines?

Because the United Arab Emirates is, as the name suggests, a federation of seven loosely-affiliated emirates (the largest and most populous of which are Abu Dhabi and Dubai, in that order), each with its own royal family.  Emirates is based in Dubai; the Emir of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa (who also happens, by longstanding convention, to be the president of the UAE), wanted his emirate to have its own flag carrier, and so Etihad came into being (founded by Sheikh Khalifa's personal pilot, no less).


How many cabin crews are needed for an A350-1000?

It depends where you are flying, i.e. which countries rules apply. In the US for example, the minimum cabin crew is determined by the seating capacity:

  For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 100 passengers—two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passenger seats above a seating capacity of 100 passengers.

(CFR 121.391 (a) (4))

The A350-1000 can seat up to 480 passengers, which would then require 10 flight attendants. Typical seating is however only 369 according to Wikipedia, which would only require 8 flight attendants.

In Europe, EASA defines the minimum number of cabin crew in the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS):

  For the A350-1000, the minimum required cabin crew number established during the aircraft
  certification process is 8, irrespective of the Maximum Operational Passenger Seating Capacity
  (MOPSC).

  [...]

  In accordance with the operational requirement ORO.CC.100-Number and composition of cabin
  crew, if the MOPSC for the specific aircraft exceeds 400, the minimum required cabin crew number
  becomes 9.

(EASA A350 TCDS)

So here 8 or 9 flight attendants are required, also depending on the seating capacity.


Why does the flight controls check come before arming the autobrake on the A320?

Both are in taxiing SOP.

The reason is in case the spoilers were accidentally left extended on the flight before (or during a maintenance check before the flight by the line engineers).

If that's the case, then pressing MAX while taxiing before checking the flight controls (spoilers included) will engage the full RTO brakes and surprise the crew, injure a cabin crew member, and/or cause an accident (a ground vehicle thinking you won't stop and is aiming to pass behind but then you stop in an instant).

Source: Operational Liaison Meeting Taxi Procedures (PDF page 7).

I'm guessing someone has done it before.


How should the crew callout 1,000 ft. prior to assigned altitude?

As Ralgha stated, this kind of callout would be included in the SOP. A couple I found in searching were the NBAA (same in their helicopter procedures by the way) and Angel Flight NE, as well as some generic CRM guides. The FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook also mentions altitude callouts, suggesting something like "two to go" and "one to go" (in thousands).

The NBAA includes this specific phrasing:

  The callout is to include the altitude vacating and the assigned
  altitude i.e. “Six thousand for seven thousand” or “Flight level
  three-zero-zero for two-niner-zero”. After the PF makes this call, the
  PNF will verify and validate the call by stating “check”.

This Flight Safety Digest mentions that USAir used to use the "two to go" and "one to go" phrasing, but opted to change this for the same that the NBAA uses. The new policy has the pilot flying make this call, since they are in control of the climb, and makes it more clear what the final altitude will be.

The Flight Safety Foundation went in to a bit more detail about the "why" behind the callout. They mentioned that in their observations, the callout was sometimes not done due to workload of other more important things going on in approach/descent. They explain the benefit:

  This is not to suggest that the 1,000-ft callout is trivial. On the
  contrary, it ensures that both pilots concur about the altitude
  target, directs the attention of a flying pilot who might be
  distracted back to the impending level-off and draws both pilots’
  attention to what the autopilot is supposed to be doing.

Another resource that suggests the important is a report of an aircraft overshooting its altitude by 600 feet because the callout was missed. This report is in the ASRS database, report number 317750.

I also found it referenced in this book about communication. They didn't really comment on it specifically, but used it as an example of how communication is critical. Specifically, the more exactly the terminology is defined, the more clear the communication will be.


Not clear in the image in the question is the aircraft type the offset arc was laid down for. Example above is for the B777-300.

Some gates may have been designed for a certain type.

Based on that, a pilot of a shorter/longer [wheelbase] type can use the offset arc as a guide in turning in before/after it.

Thanks to Ron Beyer and mins for the comments that led to this answer.


How do airports manage gate assignments for aircraft?

Depends on the airport. Some airports assign blocks of gates to specific airlines, and they then assign them to flights (usually on an as-needed or first-come-first-serve basis).
Other airports assign them all themselves, again usually on an as-needed or first-come-first-serve basis.
Of course there are categories of gates as well, size and capacity determine what aircraft types can be handled by specific gates.
In theory at least, and no doubt small airports do it that way, it can be handled all with pen and paper. Larger airports of course will have some sort of computerized system for it, either purchased off the shelf or something they had custom built for them.


Does anybody know that why C172S POH doesn't have normal & soft field landing distance chart?

Typically light GA aircraft do not list normal landing distances or soft field distances in AFMs.  Looking at the POH from a 172S

Look at Note 3, which refers to typical soft field conditions.  It indicates that a 45% increase in the short field figures is representative of soft field landing distances.

As a “normal” landing distances vary depending on how aggressive one applies stopping techniques on the ground this distance is going to vary depending on how the pilot flies the approach and landing.  Unless a specific procedure is described for this, as in the case for short field operations, there’s no way to draw up definitive performance tables for this.  In addition, the critical value here is if the pilot has enough runway available to fly the approach and stop the airplane in the minimum distance required.  If in doubt as to how much runway one will need during landing, the pilot should plan on using a short field procedure and use the published tables accordingly.

For general operations, I find an approximate 30% increase in the figures listed in these tables will provide a good margain for error and offer a conservative margain for landing figures.

Example: grass field, 4120 ft ASL, local altimeter setting of 29.83” Hg, 82° F (28°C), still air.

Pressure altitude is 4210 ft.

Using an E6B, the density altitude is 6,500 ft

Select 7000 ft from the table, 10°C column.

This gives a 730 ft landing roll from the table and 1585 ft distance to clear 50ft obstacle.

Increasing the ground roll figure by 45% for soft field gives 1059 ft ground roll and (1585-730) + 1059 = 1914 ft to clear 50 ft obstacle.

Increase by 30% for safety margin gives 1376 ft ground roll and 2488ft to clear 50ft obstacle.


It can be much simpler than that.

The aerobatic glider Mü-28 has a symmetric airfoil with 20% flaps, and those flaps are automatically set as a function of the g-load experienced near the center of gravity and the dynamic pressure. Basically, a spring-suspended lever with a mass at the end creates the necessary control input. In straight flight they are deflected downwards which makes the airfoil more suitable for gliding, in a zero-g parabola or in a knife-edge flight they are moved to 0° deflection, and in inverted flight they show a negative deflection angle. If flight speed increases, the deflections become proportionally smaller, thus preventing overloading the airframe (which is dimensioned for ±10g, so overloading it is hard anyway).

Mü-28 in inverted flight (picture source). Thanks to the low sun the rear part of the fixed wing section is illuminated so the negative flap deflection is easy to discern.

From this page:

  This innovative automatic flap system fitted to the Mü28 was developed
  at the Flugwissenschaftliche Vereinigung Aachen under the project
  designation FVA-21, controlling the position of the flaps, depending
  on the speed and the load factor, so that the aircraft flies with
  optimal angle of attack in all flight conditions.

Scheduling the maximum deflection angle with dynamic pressure as an overload protection can thus be done in two ways:

Fully mechanically by adding a spring element in the flap linkage.
In a fly-by-wire control system by hard-coding it into the control laws. For faster airplanes this is preferred as it does not require a spring in the system - any elasticity will at some point cause flutter, this is only a question of speed.


I have been unable to determine if the Product Registry has been formally relocated or replaced. However, I was able to find all of the relevant information in DO-358A. It wouldn't surprise me if this has become the de facto Product Registry, replacing the FAA website.


What should I do to resolve an incorrect birth date on my FAA medical certificate?

I read the FARs for this one, and there is a rule:
14 CFR §67.403 Applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, and records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration; incorrect statements.
From what I gather, the rule is there to get liars in trouble.
If you didn't lie, which you clearly have no reason to because your age does not disqualify you, I don't think you have to worry about getting in trouble because it was the doctor's mistake.
However: (From 67.403)

(c) The following may serve as a basis for suspending or revoking a
medical certificate; withdrawing an Authorization or SODA; or denying
an application for a medical certificate or request for an
authorization or SODA:
(2) An incorrect entry, upon which the FAA relied, made in any
logbook, record, or report that is kept, made, or used to show
compliance with any requirement for a medical certificate or an
Authorization or SODA. [My emphasis]

Let's pull out the important words and we get this:
"An incorrect entry ... made in any ... record, or report that is kept ... or used to show compliance with any requirement for a medical certificate..."
A medical certificate is certainly kept or used to show compliance with a requirement to posses a medical certificate §61.3(c)(1)
You have discovered an incorrect entry.  Call the doctor that issued your medical as soon as you can in order to get it resolved, and do not accept a solo sign-off on this incorrectly filed document now that you have knowledge of the mistake.
To give you a straight answer based on my interpretation of the law, yes; this error would prohibit you from soloing until it can be corrected.


What is the best way to give ATC a position report using only a VOR (no DME or GPS)?

I'm going on the assumption you're operating in IMC (or perhaps VMC above a cloud deck) and have no reference to the ground. In a situation if you need a pop-up IFR clearance or ATC is requiring you to provide position reports for some other reason (non-radar, or your transponder is dead and they want to identify you but don't have time to issue you confidence maneuvers).
I'm going to further constrain the scenario with the assumption that all you have are "basic" IFR instruments (6-pack, clock, compass, and VOR -- no VFR/Handheld GPS, DME, or other fancy stuff).

The AIM has some guidance on this subject in 5-3-2, but the general idea is your report should be "as accurate as possible". For routine position reporting like you'd use in non-radar environments (where you're giving an estimate of when you'll reach a reporting point) they're looking for "within 2 minutes flying time" on your estimates in most situations, so you'll want to give your position with the same sort of accuracy.

In the case you describe, with no DME, GPS, or other precision tool for reporting your distance and bearing from a fix your the most accurate option would be to report crossing a published intersection, VOR, or other reporting point noted on your chart - it's the most definite "I am HERE" report you can give, and ATC will certainly know the location.

If that's not an option (ATC needs to know where you are right now, and you're not over a VOR or charted intersection) I would probably start by computing the distance using the intersection of two VOR radials (whether this is a charted intersection doesn't matter, though it would help if your report is relative to one): Break out your chart and mark the location, then take your ruler and measure the distance from one of the stations (or a nearby intersection along the airway you're using) and you've got your position "as accurately as possible".

If you don't have a chart or can't get signal from a second VOR for some reason it's time to work out a time/speed/distance problem in the air:
If you flew over ABC VOR 10 minutes ago and are now flying from the VOR on the 090 radial at 120 knots, and you've got a 20 knot headwind (which you know from the Winds Aloft forecast, updated with data from previous position and time/speed/distance computations) then you know you've traveled about 17 miles, so you're "17 miles from ABC VOR, on the 090 radial".

The time/speed/distance computation has a lot of potential error (winds not as forecast, for one), but sometimes it's your only option.


Can you broadcast a very low power nav vor signal in air?

The use of radio transmitters is strictly controlled almost everywhere in the world. FCC would be the authority in charge if you are asking for the USA.

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is in charge of allocating frequency bands for different applications in the radio spectrum. You are only allowed to transmit if you have a frequency assignment, if your equipment is certified, and you are holding the required radio license.

There are use cases where non-certified equipment may be used (e.g. amateur aka HAM radio), or no license is required (e.g. wireless consumer devices like cell phones, remote controls, etc).

108.0 MHz is at the upper edge of the frequency band allocated to FM radio broadcasting, and the lower edge of civil aviation frequencies. Therefore 108.0 MHz is not available for experimental navigation signals. Your usage would be illegal. The same will be the case for any other frequency that can be used with certified navigation receivers.


What would be the potential thrust of an "electric jet" like Lilium's?

They look like 15 cm fans, thrust of which is competently ROM-ed in this answer.: about 40 to 60 Newton.

Note that the $C_T$ in the equation depends on fan solidity, the higher the number of blades and  the wider they are, the more thrust they produce, but also the higher power required. For a given fan power (and battery life) it makes more sense to increase fan diameter and decrease fan solidity.


Why does the faster-moving air over the static port not result in a lower static pressure?

Bernoulli's principle would also imply that the pressure observed from the static port would similarly decrease as the aircraft accelerates.

It's not that simple. Aircraft are complicated shapes. The fuselage is composed of all sorts of angles of attack, things sticking out into the airflow, and the pressure distribution of air across it is very uneven, just like that of a wing is. Take a look at this diagram from an FAA mechanics publication.

There are zones (like points 2,3, and 5 in the diagram) where the static pressure deviation is zero. This is where the engineers put the static ports.

Another way to think about this is that you're right that the airflow over the static ports should make the pressure lower--- but the question is: lower than what? The answer is: lower than the airflow's stagnation pressure, when the outside airflow is at rest (relative to the aircraft). Which happens at the nosecone, or the leading edge of the wing... or at the pitot tube. It's lower than that by the same amount that the pitot pressure is higher than ambient, making the pressure at the static port exactly ambient outside pressure. Which should make sense, because in the reference frame of the air, that static air isn't doing anything but sitting around waiting for an airplane to come by.

The Bernoulli effect does, however, have an overall average result: the cabin pressure in the airplane is lower than static, because the angle of attack of the various surfaces of the fuselage generates suction, pulling a small amount of air out of the cabin, just as it does for the wing if there are little holes in the wing. Which is why you get the little blip when you pull the Alternate Static open.


Are DPEs incentivized to fail people on checkrides so they can collect extra money on re-tests?

I think you are getting worked up about something that isn't a problem.  DPEs are incentivized to develop a professional reputation that upholds appropriate standards, while passing those who meet the standard.  Someone who is motivated by greed to fail students as you suggest would quickly get a bad reputation and people would simply stop scheduling check rides with him/her, so the plan would rapidly backfire.

Think about it, I could easily make the opposite case that I am concerned about safety because a DPE motivated by the desire to get a reputation of passing people the first time to increase his/her business could be tempted to compromise on the standards.  It should all balance out in the end.


Why doesn't the 737 have a fuel dump nozzle?

TesterMen Tester provided some very good information which I think requires a bit of explanation. The older version of the regulation seems to require fuel dump capability if MTOW is more than 105 percent of MLW. None of the 737 versions have weight limits under this requirement, so based on that regulation, it seems like fuel dump would be required. But as the Boeing info shows, none of the 737 versions have fuel dump capability.

That regulation was amended in 1968 to allow a plane to not have a fuel dump system as long as it can meet certain performance requirements. The current version of the regulation includes this as well.

However, this does not explain why the 737-100/200, which were certified before that amendment, don't have fuel dump capability, when the MTOW listed by the Boeing info above are 108% and 112% of the MLW.

The explanation is that the original versions of the aircraft had lower MTOW, which met the 105% rule. Newer engines allowed the MTOW to be increased, but as rbp mentioned, MLW is based on landing gear and structural limits, so it did not change. The FAA amended the regulation with the required performance option to allow the higher MTOW without requiring fuel dump capability. Also, as explained in answers to this related question, planes can land over MLW, there just may be required inspections.

Note that the similar-sized A320 family does not have fuel dump capability either. Smaller planes usually don't end up with the kind of fuel capacity and takeoff weights that justify a system to dump fuel.


What kind of helmet is in this A-10 video?

The pilot's helmet in the photo is a standard Gentex HGU-55/P fitted with a Thales Aerospace Scorpion Helmet Mounted Cueing System.  Information on the SHMCS is available on the corporate website

http://www.thalesvisionix.com/overview/

As to weight, the display, cableing, and visor add several ounces of extra weight to the helmet.  It's a little heavier and slightly bulkier than a standard visor on a helmet but not by much.  Aircrews have been flying with HMDs now for about ten or so years without any major impediments to their flying abilities.

There has been a weight issue associated with the F-35 HMD and the aircraft's ejection seat which could cause a fatal whiplash injury during ejection with smaller pilots.  This is being remedied with changes to the seat's pneumatic catapult system, drogue chute deployment timing, both controlled by a selector switch prior to flight, and a newer, lighter version of the helmet under development.


How would an airfoil react if it was flown backwards?

What would happen? Flow separation on the suction side, but it would still produce lift like a regular airfoil. The L/D ratio would be lousy, however.

Only at a small angle of attack range will the wing show attached flow on both sides: When the stagnation point is right at the tip of the trailing edge. This behaviour is similar to that of a flat plate and produces a rather limited range of useable lift coefficients and substantially more drag than when used properly. But still you get more suction on one and more pressure on the other side. The blunt rear edge will cause flow separation at all angles of attack and substantially increase pressure (or form) drag.

An airfoil with a blunt trailing edge has an advantage over a flat plate because it will perform acceptably over a slightly larger angle of attack range, but still this will be no comparison to the behaviour with the blunt side facing forward. Indeed, the front of an airfoil needs to be blunt to allow its use over a larger angle of attack range, while its rear end needs to be pointed to reduce the area over which the flow separates.

Now I feel I should drop a line or two about the cause of lift. Essentially, a wing creates lift by accelerating the air that flows around it downwards. The inclination of the airfoil will already be enough to cause this acceleration, regardless which side faces forward. The plot below shows how several airfoils perform over the first 180° angle of attack.

Lift coefficient over the first 180° angle of attack (picture source)


What would happen if the entire blade on a turbojet engine went supersonic?

Not much if designed for it, but efficiency will suffer. Also, if the blade is not designed for the loads, the all-supersonic flow could overload it.

How would you achieve the desired all-supersonic flow? By cooling the intake temperature or increasing the rotation speed, of course. Cooling is less practical, so lets assume you run the compressor faster. This would mean higher centrifugal loads, and the increased dynamic pressure would drive up aerodynamic blade loads with the square of the speed increase.

Also note that compressor blades for subsonic flow are highly cambered. Supersonic blades would better be uncambered. Thus, the blade would only function well if both its aerodynamics and its strength are designed for the full supersonic speed. A regular blade would perform poorly and probably fail. However, even an optimized blade would show lower efficiency due to the inherently higher aerodynamic losses in supersonic flow.


Snowtams follow the ICAO Format found in ICAO Annex 15, Appendix 2

This says that the abbreviated heading starts with SW** where ** is the ICAO location identifier. The location identifier document, ICAO 7910 is a \$245 document so I can't link to it here, but all the Swedish airports start with location identifers that are "ES", hence any SNOWTAM you find from Sweden will be SWES reports. Reports for the United States typically start with "K" so they would be SWK*. Canada is "C", so SWC*.


When two pilots are required for a private aircraft, is it a requirement for the PIC to be ATPL?

Negative.  A person holding a private pilot certificate (at least in the USA) is allowed to add a type rating granting both PIC and SIC privileges in an aircraft type certified for a two person flight crew provided the flights are not carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire.  See 14 CFR 61.117.

An ATPL would be required if said type rated pilot was conducting Part 121 or Part 135 operations in such an aircraft.


How far in advance of "effective date" are VFR sectional charts usually made available? (US)

According to the product catalog website of the FAA, new VFR charts are available approximately 20 days prior to their effective date. Since 25th of February 2021, the FAA releases new VFR charts every 56 days, aligned with the AIRAC cycle.

The products mentioned in this catalog are posted at Digital Products
approxiamately 20 days prior to their cycle effective dates. They are
also available through FAA Approved Print Providers.


What methodology did ICAO use to create the overall code nomenclature for airports?

There is no one, easy answer for where each region (or country) got their one- or two-letter designation.  Many of them evolved over time.  When the ICAO (as an organizational body) was formed out of the international conference in Chicago in November 1944, dozens (or hundreds?) of things needed to be standardized between nations.  One of these things was a standard way to identify airports.  (another was aircraft registrations... a minor, but related, blurb about that at the end)

Many of these attending countries already had a "standardized letter prefix" from the 1912 convention in London regarding telecommunication call signs. For example, Canada was C (easy to understand why), and the United States was either W or K (less easy to see why, but there is history there, too -- see below). Other countries who were members to the 1912 convention had various call signs, some of which started with numbers.  These countries, obviously, did not easily convert over to a letter prefix system that ICAO was adopting.  At the end of the day, there were numerous ICAO committee meetings (and I can only imagine some heated arguments between delegates) that eventually resulted in the various regions and sub-regions we know today and that are depicted on the map below.

A small bit of history on how the USA evolved to the letter K:  In the late 1800s, when telegraph was getting under way and Morse Code was in heavy use, there were two very easy to use Morse Code letters: A (dot dash) and N (dash dot).  The US Government reserved these two letters for its military telegraph station call signs, and assigned A to the Army and N to the Navy. Makes some logical sense so far.  Of course, the civilians were wanting to get in on the revolutionary break through of wired (and eventually wireless) telegraphic communications, so the US Government created a civilian set of call signs in addition to the military. To do this, they simply added a single dash to each Morse Code letter, and the dot-dash (A) became dot-dash-dash (W) and the dash-dot (N) became dash-dot-dash (K).

The USA now essentially had four different letter-prefix designations for its radio station call signs: A and N (military use), and W and K (civilian use). The W and K call signs were also geographically separated with K being assigned to all stations in the west, and W for all stations to the east. The "border" between K and W changed over time, eventually landing on the Mississippi river, but that's another topic.  You still see this today in your AM/FM music broadcasting and TV stations, with most stations "out west" being a Kxxx identifier.

Eventually, voice radios became very popular and all new stations were only issued the letter K. W-stations were grandfathered in. Additionally, radio stations began to be carried onboard aircraft, and the previous military-only letter of N was eventually assigned to all airborne radios, including civilian. Aircraft began marking their exteriors with their N-xxx radio call sign.

Anyway, to make a long story short (too late?), the US was able to exert is muscle at the 1912 conference in London and all 4 of those letter prefixes (A,N,W, and K) were retained for sole use to the US.  But 35 years later, during the formation of the ICAO and the resulting subcommittees, the US agreed to be "Letter K" for its airport designations and "Letter N" for its aircraft registrations, losing the letters W and A (at least in the ICAO books).  Also, remember that Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states, so they were both lumped into the Pacific Region [P] with sub-regional designations of PH and PA, along with all the other Pacific Region subs (PG for Guam, PM for Midawy, PB for Baker, etc.).


Is it possible to calculate the distance to climb to 1000 Ft in Cessna 172S?

The POH published ground roll is 960 feet. (Performance Specifications, cover page)

The rate of climb from Sea Level is 730 Feet Per Minute, which is 82 seconds to climb to 1000 feet. (Section 5-18, Time, Fuel and Distance to Climb)

During that 82 seconds, the plane will have a airspeed of 74 kts, or 85 MPH, or 1.419 miles per minute.

So in 82 seconds, covering 1.419 miles per minute, the plane will cover 1.93 miles.

1.93 miles of climb, + 960 feet of ground roll = 11,200 feet, or 2.12 miles.

The last column of the table in Section 5-18 is "Distance in NM from Sea Level", which says that the distance it takes to climb from Sea Level to 1000 feet is 2 NM.

2 NM is 2.3 statute miles, which is pretty darn close to my calculation of 2.12 miles (difference of 950 feet).  So the answer cross-checks nicely.

From start of takeoff roll to 1000 feet MSL, you can expect about 2.1 - 2.3 miles, not counting headwind and temperature factors.

I re did the calculations, accounting for a 20 kt headwind. (I think that is the maximum that most Cessna students would take off in), and that shortened the distance to 1.5 miles.

  With max headwind: 1.5 miles
  With no wind: 2.3 miles.

I think that covers your range pretty well.


Could SR-71 be shot down today?

Theoretically yes. Modern day SAMs like the 40N6 that travel at speeds of Mach 6 can intercept an SR 71 within an operational range of 250 miles upto an altitude of 18 miles. Moreover, the hostile SAM will fire a salvo of missiles(at least 2-3). So the SR 71 will have to jam, drop decoys and out manoeuvre the incoming hostile missiles.Modern day SAM systems can be loaded with libraries of 3D shapes that can be used by the seeker to identify targets and threats.

S-400 and similar Russian/Chinese AD systems are meant to work simultaneously with ECM systems, meaning radars of enemy aircraft will be blinded  as 40N6 and 48N6 missiles zeroes in.

During the days of the cold war Soviet Air Force pilots were instructed to launch two rounds, a semi-active radar homing missile and a heat seeking missile.In this fashion the SR 71( or any other hostile aircraft) being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or out manoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles

That being said getting in the general vicinity of an intercept is different from an actual intercept.

http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/19310/Hitting-a-Moving-Target-The-Missile-Guidance-Syste

From Jane's  Fighter Combat in the Jet Age : Page 116-117 “SR71 the Ultimate Target”

  On June 3, 1986 an SR 71 was on a mission over the Barents Sea. Six
  Mig 31 Foxhounds, vastly superior to the Mig25 Foxbat,performed a
  coordinated intercept that would have subjected the SR71 to an
  all-angle AAM attack that even a combination of high-altitude
  maneuverability and ECM could not have defeated. Fortunately for the
  American jet, the interception took place over international waters,
  but the Soviets proved their point.

In fact,the SR 71 was retired once the USSR started deploying S 300 SAMs in large numbers.

  I've read that SR-71 had no missile defenses because it could simply outrun any adversary. Is this still true?.

That is not true. The SR 71 did carry a very sophisticated Electronic Counter Measure System(ECM) called the Defensive System

One of the first MiG 31 Foxhound pilots, Captain Mikhail Myagkiy, who had scrambled with his MiG-31 several times to intercept the US super-fast spy plane, explains in his book how he was able to lock on a Blackbird on Jan. 31, 1986:

  The scheme for intercepting the SR-71 was computed down to the last
  second, and the MiGs had to launch exactly 16 minutes after the
  initial alert. (…) They alerted us for an intercept at 11.00. They
  sounded the alarm with a shrill bell and then confirmed it with a
  loudspeaker. The appearance of an SR-71 was always accompanied by
  nervousness. Everyone began to talk in frenzied voices, to scurry
  about, and react to the situation with excessive emotion.

Missiles are faster and can sustain higher G loadings than SR-71.  Assuming that the SR 71 is flying at an altitude of  70,000 ft to 80,000 ft  it only needs to maneuver to out turn the missile, in order to  make the change in intercept geometry fall outside the missile's envelope. However, at extreme altitudes aircraft maneuvers are limited by stall buffet.

The SR-71 could fly a 7,000+ mile mission and the only segments of which are flown at sub sonic speeds  are the take-off, refueling  and landing.

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/diagrams/index.htm

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/diagr...conprofile.htm

The thing is the Soviets knew that in order for any Soviet fighter aircraft to intercept an SR-71 it had to be ahead of its known flight path. These were the tactics the Soviets deployed to even get a glimpse of the SR-71. They always knew when an SR-71 launch would occur because the KC-135 fuel tanker would take off first because the SR-71 had to be immediately refueled once airborne.


Who decided which airspaces not to fly through and how?

One major driving factor is whether a permit is required. Many countries in the world require a permit even for overflight.

(source)

Depending on country to country, airline to country and general relations it may be more advantageous for a carrier to get permits in one country than it would be in a close neighbor. Going a bit out of the way (burning extra fuel ultimately) may be less costly than delays related to permit issues, etc.

In some cases there are also prohibited airspaces within a country. This is simply airspace you cant fly over for regulatory reasons (generally security). While some of these airspaces are small, some areas can be quite large in size.

While increasingly a smaller case not all aircraft are equipped to fly through all airspaces. Different regulating bodies may require different gear on board for a given flight. Aircraft may be prevented from entering a given airspace if not properly equipped or certified.

On any given day routes may be amended for weather or potential weather hazards.

As @mins notes in the comments, this answer covers areas avoided for safety reasons.


What's the difference of Vs from Vs0 or Vs1?

Vs is the generic term.  However, since stall speed varies depending upon how the aircraft is configured (in particular the flaps), we break that down into Vs0 for landing config and Vs1 for cruise config.  In theory, we should list the stall speed for every possible configuration, but it's generally sufficient to list just those two because all others should be somewhere in between.


Does heavy air pollution improve takeoff performance?

Percentages of pollutants will not have a significant effect on earth as compared with temperature and pressure.  However, on a planet like Mars, with a CO2 atmosphere, the density difference may be significant enough to effect lift calculations.

Maybe NASA could go with a twisted Prandtl biplane using a high altitude electric motor and prop.  They have reached 95,000 feet on earth with Helios, but had issues with structural strength.


What is the minimum runway width for SSC Stratolaunch?

A 200ft runway would likely be approved for Stratolaunch, but it would need special approval.

Minimum runway width is determined by both physical characteristics as well as flight performance of the aircraft. A pilot has to be able to safely land the aircraft in adverse weather, cross wind, etc. Since the flight characteristics of Stratolaunch have not been determined, it would not be approved for other than special use operation on any runway at any airport. Even runways that can accommodate such a large plane may not be approved if associated taxiways are not also suitable.

ICAO has a standard table used for determining minimum runway width based on aircraft reference field length, wing span and gear spacing. Stratolaunch is larger than the largest standard entry, so it would not qualify for even 60m/200ft width on that basis.

Looking at the A380 introduction there was interest is allowing operation from 150ft wide runways. FAA Engineering Brief 65A determined that an average pilot could safely operate an A380 on a 150ft wide runway. Its track width is 47ft, so a 50ft deviation on either side was deemed acceptable. If you assume that Stratolaunch is as controllable as an A380 (which I think would be extremely permissive) and given that its track width is just over 100ft, it would be borderline ok for a 200ft runway based on flight characteristics.

The A380 also had a requirement for a "stabilized shoulder", which was intended to prevent runway contamination by FOD. This requirement added a 50ft strip to each side of the runway. Since the span to outer engines is 168ft, the stabilized width was 40ft outside the engines. Stratolaunch engine span is 220ft, so adding 40*2 feet of stabilized surface makes total width 300ft. This is pretty standard for a 200ft runway.

It seems on the basis of this special approval for the A380, a 200ft runway would be approved for Stratolaunch.


Is stall recovery training mandatory for Airbus pilots?

According to the official investigation report, both the flight crew on this flight had received stall recovery training, but not upset recovery training, on the A320. The Flight Crew Training Manual for the A320 (issued by Airbus) did not mandate upset recovery training. The operator's training manual (issued by Air Indonesia) did mandate upset recovery training, but it was not delivered by the airline for pilots of the A320 because of Airbus's statement that it was unnecessary. Only upset prevention training was given. Both the below are from the linked report:

  The  approved  Operation  Training Manual covers  the  upset  recovery
  training  in Chapter 8. The  module  consisted  of ground and simulator training. The ground training provides the flight crew with the background, definition, cause of  aircraft upset, aerodynamic and  aircraft systems in
  relation with aircraft upset. Recovery methods consider various aircraft attitude and speed including post upset conditions.

  The  upset recovery training  had  not  been  implemented on Airbus  A320
  training, since it  is  not  required  according  to  the  Flight  Crew  Training  Manual  and  has not been mandated by the DGCA.

and later

  The Upset Recovery training was included in the aircraft operators training manual. The aircraft operator advised the KNKT that the flight crew had not been trained for the upset recovery training on Airbus A320, and this referred to FCTM Operational Philosophy: “The  effectiveness of fly-by-wire  architecture,  and  the  existence  of control  laws,  eliminates  the  need  for  upset  recovery  maneuvers  to  be  trained  on
  protected Airbus”. There was no evidence of DGCA findings for this incompliance of training.

Upset aircraft is where the attitude or airspeed is greatly outside the normal flight envelope, such as might happen after a mid-air collision or loss of control, or (as in this case) prolonged wrong inputs when fly-by-wire is disengaged. A stall is not necessarily an upset aircraft condition.

The report also notes that the stall recovery training doesn't necessarily cover the developed stall, but rather recovering when the stall warning sounds before actually reaching the stall. The exercise is carried out from level flight by reducing airspeed and pitching up progressively to trigger the stall warning, and then pitching down to recover. (This is the same way stall recovery is taught to private pilots in smaller aircraft.)

Recovering from a developed stall where the aircraft's attitude is level but it is descending rapidly (stall at zero pitch) is not mandatory training (p119), and this is the situation the flight crew were unable to recover.

As there are too many crashes resulting from unrecovered stalls, the whole industry has worked together to produce better training programmes. One of the Safety Actions resulting from this crash is that Air Indonesia now gives upset recovery training to all its pilots, to comply with its own policy. In addition, the airliner manufacturers have produced a new training aid (applicable to most airplanes) for teaching upset recovery, and Airbus has already issued an Operations Training Transmission with instructions for carrying out suitable simulator training.


How do pilots manage their flight times?

Airlines are required to have extra pilots on long flights so that pilots can take rest breaks.
A typical 18 hour flight from New York to Singapore will have four pilots. The pilots will divide the rest breaks so that there is always two pilots in the flight deck at the controls, and two pilots in a crew rest facility. Most crew rest areas will have beds or bunks to sleep in.
Typically all four pilots are in the flight deck from takeoff to about 10,000' and then again from 10,000' to landing. The cruise portion of the flight be divided so that each pilot gets an equal amount of rest. Various airlines will differ on how this is done.
Usually two pilots will be paired to take the same rest breaks so that they don't disturb anyone when they enter or leave the crew rest area. For example many airlines will divide a 16 hour cruise portion of the flight so that the paired pilots each get two 4 hour breaks. Some airlines will divide the time so that there is one 8 hour rest period instead of two 4 hours rest periods.


I don't belive there is any regulation against it. Keep in mind you may need to show the book to officials at some point so keeping it professional is not a terrible idea

  (1) Persons must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate,
  logbook, or any other record required by this part for inspection upon
  a reasonable request by -

  (i) The Administrator;

  (ii) An authorized representative from the National Transportation
  Safety Board; or

  (iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.

The FAA is more concerned with what you log than what's on the cover of your book. I can't say I have ever seen a log book with a bedazzled cover but I'm sure they are out there. If you are talking about putting a decal that says "Ryan's Log Book" across the cover, that's fine, but a giant glow-in-the-dark unicorn sticker might get you some looks although technically OK.