How much data is stored in the flight data recorder per hour in a typical flight of an A380? One drawback or impediment to the storage of flight recorder data on the cloud is the amount of data that'd be transmitted and at cost.

How much data in GB or TB is stored in the flight data recorder per hour in a typical flight of an A380?

I don't have the numbers for the A380 but have some for the Dreamliner. On a typical flight a Dreamliner will record about a half a terabyte of data:

  This level of operational insight will involve generating large amounts of data from each 787 aircraft, he explained. “We can get upwards of half a terabyte of data from a single flight from all of the different devices which are internet connected," Bulman said.

source

Depending on the airline this data is stored/processed/compressed/uploaded to HQ.

The flight data recorder or "Black Box" stores far less parameters as only 88 are required by the FAA:

  (1) Time;
  (2) Pressure altitude;
  (3) Indicated airspeed;
  (4) Heading--primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record discrete, true or magnetic);
  (5) Normal acceleration (Vertical);
  (6) Pitch attitude;
  (7) Roll attitude;
  (8) Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization reference;
  (9) Thrust/power of each engine--primary flight crew reference;
  (10) Autopilot engagement status;
  (11) Longitudinal acceleration;
  (12) Pitch control input;
  (13) Lateral control input;
  (14) Rudder pedal input;
  (15) Primary pitch control surface position;
  (16) Primary lateral control surface position;
  (17) Primary yaw control surface position;
  (18) Lateral acceleration;
  (19) Pitch trim surface position
  (20) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection
  (21) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection
  (22) Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller airplane);
  (23) Ground spoiler position or speed brake selection
  (24) Outside or total air temperature;
  (25) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) modes and engagement status, including
  autothrottle;
  (26) Radio altitude;
  (27) Localizer deviation, MLS Azimuth;
  (28) Glideslope deviation, MLS Elevation;
  (29) Marker beacon passage;
  (30) Master warning;
  (31) Air/ground sensor (primary airplane system reference nose or main gear);
  (32) Angle of attack ;
  (33) Hydraulic pressure low (each system);
  (34) Ground speed ;
  (35) Ground proximity warning system;
  (36) Landing gear position or landing gear cockpit control selection;
  (37) Drift angle
  (38) Wind speed and direction ;
  (39) Latitude and longitude
  (40) Stick shaker/pusher
  (41) Windshear
  (42) Throttle/power lever position;
  (43) Additional engine parameters
  (44) Traffic alert and collision avoidance system;
  (45) DME 1 and 2 distances;
  (46) Nav 1 and 2 selected frequency;
  (47) Selected barometric setting
  (48) Selected altitude ;
  (49) Selected speed
  (50) Selected mach
  (51) Selected vertical speed
  (52) Selected heading
  (53) Selected flight path
  (54) Selected decision height
  (55) EFIS display format;
  (56) Multi-function/engine/alerts display format;
  (57) Thrust command
  (58) Thrust target
  (59) Fuel quantity in CG trim tank
  (60) Primary Navigation System Reference;
  (61) Icing
  (62) Engine warning each engine vibration
  (63) Engine warning each engine over temp.
  (64) Engine warning each engine oil pressure low
  (65) Engine warning each engine over speed
  (66) Yaw trim surface position;
  (67) Roll trim surface position;
  (68) Brake pressure (selected system);
  (69) Brake pedal application (left and right);
  (70) Yaw of sideslip angle;
  (71) Engine bleed valve position
  (72) De-icing or anti-icing system selection
  (73) Computed center of gravity
  (74) AC electrical bus status;
  (75) DC electrical bus status;
  (76) APU bleed valve position
  (77) Hydraulic pressure (each system);
  (78) Loss of cabin pressure;
  (79) Computer failure;
  (80) Heads-up display
  (81) Para-visual display
  (82) Cockpit trim control input position-pitch;
  (83) Cockpit trim control input position--roll;
  (84) Cockpit trim control input position--yaw;
  (85) Trailing edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
  (86) Leading edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
  (87) Ground spoiler position and speed brake selection; and
  (88) All cockpit flight control input forces (control wheel, control column, rudder pedal)

Source

Some modern airliners such as the A330neo store up to 1200 parameters, making it easier to traceback what caused a crash.

Exact numbers are difficult to provide as the data from a black box is considered to be highly confidential.


How should the maximum output force of the actuator be chosen? If the hinge moments of the control surfaces of an aircraft are given, how should the maximum output force of the actuator be chosen? Is there any standard or reference?

If the largest hinge moment is known for the entire flight envelope, including that required for continued safe flight and landing after failure(s), then the actuator can be readily sized. Of course, some engineering judgement is needed to compromise between:

Buffering for additional unforeseen loading (i.e. factor of safety) for later stages of the design and flight test, during which swapping the actuators can be costly, and
Sizing down the actuators to save weight and costs.

Therefore, the more scenarios you have considered for obtaining this maximum hinge moment and the more confidence you have in your model, the better off you are. For example, for elevator, consider the following (but not limited to):

Achieve -1g to 2.5g at Vmo/Mmo with 3 sec out-of-trim in the opposite direction (14 CFR 25.255(a) and (c))
Achieve 1.5g at Vdf/Mdf with 3 sec out-of-trim in the opposite direction (14 CFR 25.255(a) and (f))
Takeoff rotation with dual hydraulic failure
Achieve 0.8g and 1.3g at Vmo/Mmo with dual hydraulic failure (or single elevator surface jam)


Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long? The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:

L-049

(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)

L-649

(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)

L-749

(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)

L-1049

(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)

L-1649

(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons.  Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)

In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:

(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)

and the Stratocruiser:

(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?

The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.

They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.

Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.

The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.

At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).

Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.


Why does the airplane not 'feel' the crosswind? Apologies for multiple pictures but I thought they would depict my question more clearly than a lengthy description.

Image 1: Why does the aircraft still follow the straight path even if the wind is blowing from left to right?

Image 2: Why does it appear that the aircraft is sliding?

Image 3: Why is there no need to apply any rudder in the presence of a cross wind?

When dealing with crosswinds and drift, I find the easiest way to understand the concept is to imagine a fast flowing river of water. If you tried to swim straight across a fast river you will end up downstream. You don't "feel" the current. You just keep swimming and the current carries you.

Any time you have wind it is like a river of air flowing over the earth.

Traveling through a river of air is exactly like traveling through a river of water.  You don't go where you are pointed, you go where the current carries you, plus the direction you are swimming.


Is the FAA Medical Exam an IRS Medical Expense? Does the FAA Medical Exam for a medical certificate qualify as a Medical Expense per IRS Publication 502 (thus allowing one to deduct the expense, or utilize a Health Savings Account (HSA)/Flexible Spending Account (FSA))?

One possible way to have the medical exam qualify as a medical expense would be to have a standard physical exam and the FAA medical exam together (which might also let you claim it with your health insurance).

Is this interpretation correct or consistent with your experience?

If you're asking whether you can pay for one with an HSA or FSA, then yes, physical exams are eligible expenses, though consult with your insurance provider first if they are covered by your plan.

Physical Examination
You can include in medical expenses the amount you pay for an annual physical examination and diagnostic tests by a physician. You do not have to be ill at the time of the examination.

If you're looking to add it to a list of itemized deductions, as Pondlife explained, it generally has to be business- or workplace related.  If you are a professional pilot, then this is deductible.

What Can I Deduct?
To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your industry. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business. An expense does not have to be indispensable to be considered necessary.


Can you fly the plane manually without disengaging autopilot? Let's say you are engaged a Boeing 777 with autopilot on and you bank or pitch. Will the plane respond?.
If so. will the plane try to return to its parameters once you quit handling the controls?.
Same question for any Airbus.

I read that in the case of a TCAS RA you need to disengage the autopilot and fly manually. But let's suppose your TCAS tells you to Climb and you pull your yoke without disengaging the AP. What would happen on a Boeing or on an Airbus?

The autopilot will always disengage when you try to override the controls. Manual control has priority over autopilot.
For the Boeing 737, the control mode changes to CWS (Control wheel Steering), which is an autopilot mode but follows control column inputs. So if you manually set it on 12 degrees pitch down (please do not do this in real life) then the autopilot will keep it there.


Where can I get an list of ATC phraseology terms in Spanish? I'm considering flying in a Spanish-speaking country and would like to have a passing familiarity with how to communicate with ATC in Spanish. Is there an ATC English-to-Spanish dictionary?

ICAO has defined in their Annexes that English is only one of the available langauges to ICAO and that ATS should either use the language specified in the country's AIP or use English.

  1.2.9    Language proficiency

  1.2.9.1    Aeroplane, airship, helicopter and powered-lift pilots, air traffic controllers and aeronautical station operators
  shall demonstrate the ability to speak and understand the language used for radiotelephony communications to the level
  specified in the language proficiency requirements in Appendix 1.

  Note 2.— The provisions of 1.2.9 refer to Annex 10, Volume II, Chapter 5, whereby the language used for radiotelephony
  communications may be the language normally used by the station on the ground or English. In practice, therefore, there will
  be situations whereby flight crew members will only need to speak the language normally used by the station on the ground.

Personally, additional to my proficiency level in English, I also hold a Level 6 language proficiency German in my pilot's license.

Below is a screenshot of the Aerodrome Description for LEBL/Barcelona, taken from Spain's AIP. You see that ES/EN is listed as available languages.

If you are looking for Spanish Phraseology, you can find it with Argentina's Administracion Nacional de Aviacion Civil.


Is night vision essential to pilots? If someone with no night vision were in the cockpit of a nocturnal flight, that person's situation would resemble Instrument Flight Rules. Am I correct? So:

In theory, can someone lacking night vision operate an aircraft with no more danger than a pilot on IFR?

Can someone lacking night vision get a pilot's licence?

An answer that is valid for India, China, EU or the US is appreciated

The name of the condition is nyctalopia. I found it mentioned by the UK's CAA (sorry it doesn't match your array of jurisdictions, but maybe this information will lead to more):

If the pilot is found to have a demonstrable nyctalopia, a medical flight or simulator test may be required, depending on the degree of severity.  For pilots with demonstrated nyctalopia enough to cause concerns for night flying, a VCL limitation will be required.
— caa.co.uk

"VCL" being a daytime-only limitation, which would typically not allow a Class 1.


When is a CFII required to provide instrument training? 61.195(c) states:

  (c)Instrument rating. A flight instructor may conduct instrument
  training for the issuance of an instrument rating, a type rating not
  limited to VFR, or the instrument training required for commercial
  pilot and airline transport pilot certificates if the following
  requirements are met:

  (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the flight
  instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft
  used for the instrument training on his or her flight instructor
  certificate, [...]

So as a CFI with a current instrument rating (but not yet a CFII) it appears I can provide instrument training to students working toward their Instrument Rating. I'm trying to find what limitations to this there are - what regs state when training must be from a CFII?

61.65 - Instrument rating requirements (d)(2) states:

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

Throughout 61.65 it consistently states only "authorized instructor" but there is no definition for "authorized instructor" except only as in 61.1(b) which reads:

  Authorized instructor means— (i) A person who holds a ground
  instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in
  compliance with §61.217, when conducting ground training in accordance
  with the privileges and limitations of his or her ground instructor
  certificate; (ii) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate
  issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with
  §61.197, when conducting ground training or flight training in
  accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight
  instructor certificate; or [...]

61.197 is only Renewal requirements for flight instructor certification.
So by all this, it seems to me that as a CFI with an instrument rating I'm authorized to provide instrument training. There's definitely something missing here and after hours of digging through regs I just can't find any clearer definitions on this. Can anyone help provide some guidance on where it's defined as to when a CFII is required? Thanks in advance.

No, you cannot provide

  instrument training for the issuance of an instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, or the instrument training required for commercial pilot and airline transport pilot certificates

Unless you hold

  (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight instructor certificate,

Having an instrument rating on your CFI makes you a CFII.

You are confusing a CFII, who is a CFI with an instrument rating on his / her flight instructor certificate, with

someone that has an instrument rating on his / her pilot certificate and who also might hold their CFI.

You must be a CFII to give instrument training, the exception to that would be for private pilot candidates from 61.109

  (3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight;

a CFI is able to give those 3 hours of instruction.  Anything beyond private pilot is the realm of the CFII.


How do gyroscopic instruments work? I'm trying to better my understanding of the physics behind gyroscopic instruments in an aircraft. I am aware that a spinning gyroscope creates rigidity in space by resisting applied forces. But, what exactly is the resistive force acting on the externally applied to forces, and how is it created? Is that what precession is?

I saw this pretty cool video a while ago:

It gives an intuitive discussion of gyroscopes.

On another level though, it boils down to the angular momentum of the spinning gyroscope, and the fact that in order to change that momentum's direction/magnitude, an external moment must be applied.


How is the Max Zero Fuel Weight used in calculating weight and balance? In some weight and balance apps there is an option to "Use Max Zero Fuel Weight".  Having never seen this in any of the aircraft I have experience flying, I am curious how this value is typically used in the calculation of an aircraft's weight and balance.

Can someone give me an example of how this value is used in a weight and balance calculation?

Maximum Zero Fuel Weight is an operating limitation intended to protect the wing spar structure by limiting the concentration of load, relative to all up weight, borne by the wings in the middle of the span.  In other words it limits spar bending loads at the wing roots imposed by the mass in the fuselage because any additional weight must be in the wing tanks where the additional load doesn't add to root bending.

Generically, Zero Fuel Weight can just mean all up weight minus usable fuel.  However, when an instruction says to use "Max Zero Fuel Weight" it's saying to apply a published MZFW value that is an operating limitation.  In your case you would enter the Max ZFW value from the airplane's Operating Limitations in the AFM into the app.


What are the effects of headwind strength on landing? Assuming a direct headwind with zero crosswind component, what are the effects of landing into say a 10kt vs 30kt vs 50kt headwind? Are there any specific advantages or drawbacks to a stronger headwind when landing? Are there any specific procedures that kick in when the headwind exceeds a certain number for a certain aircraft?
I don't know if aircraft type matters much in answering this question, though I realize that small aircraft could potentially encounter a headwind that is faster than the recommended landing speed, thus making it difficult to reach the runway in the first place. Let's leave that situation out of the answers - assume that the wind is slower than the recommended landing speed.
I understand that landing into a headwind is the preferred option, and that tailwind landings are possible up to certain limits.
I understand that crosswind makes the landing more challenging and that there are limits to the crosswind component. Assume a direct headwind for this question.
I understand that a headwind makes ground speed slower for a given quantity of lift, but that's irrelevant to anyone but the passenger anxious to make his connection.
Assume a fairly steady wind with minimal gusting - at a level most pilots wouldn't be concerned with. (Unless, of course, gusts make a more or less significant difference based on steady-stream speed.)
Update:
This seems to be a fairly difficult question. I get the fact that, in practice, the above conditions are likely never going to be met, this is more of a theoretical question - assuming a direct headwind, assuming near zero gusting, assuming "significant" differences in headwind (in relation to the aircraft's landing speed - a C152 with one on board will land slower than a fully loaded A380). These are combinations that will probably never happen outside a wind tunnel, but I'm sure someone, somewhere has thought about them.

Are there any specific advantages or drawbacks to a stronger headwind when landing?

A strong headwind right down the runway can appreciably shorten your landing roll, if you want to do that. If you want to clear the runway as soon as conveniently possible, you might be able to take a taxiway closer to touchdown than you otherwise would.

Or, let's say the taxiway that is closest to your gate is 3/4 or more down the runway, so what you might do in a strong headwind would be to not use reverse, or just go into reverse but not bring the power up. What you don't want to do, at least at busy airports, is tie up the runway at a taxi speed.

Some have contended that a strong headwind, with the resulting lower groundspeed, makes for a slightly smoother landing because the tires don't have to spin up as much. I don't have an opinion on that.

A strong headwind can mean that brake temperatures on arrival at the gate will be lower than otherwise, both because of less brake usage on rollout and better ventilation of the brakes while taxiing.

  Are there any specific procedures that kick in when the headwind exceeds a certain number for a certain aircraft?

I've never heard of such specifically for a headwind, or at least I don't remember ever hearing of such.


DA40 fuselage static ports / G1000 not in AFM I’m a flight instructor who just switched from instructing in 172’s to flying the Diamond DA40 and am confused about a few things. Our DA40 has two static ports, one on either side of the fuselage. This doesn’t make sense to me because the AFM in the airplane says the static ports are on the left wing along with the pitot probe. I haven’t been able to find anything online about these static ports, and I’ve only seen one DA40 AFM.

My second confusion is, the airplane is equipped with a G1000; however, the AFM in the airplane doesn’t say anything about the G1000, there is only a cockpit reference guide for it. Would this indicate an upgrade from original avionics? Would it be in the maintenance records? (Mx records was my next stop)

I found the answer by further reading the AFM. On DA40's with an auto pilot installed, optional static ports may be added to the fuselage.


How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? I am reading this article on the NY Times, where they show two possible flight paths of the missing flight MH370 in the South Indian Ocean:

I am wondering how they can come up with such specific paths, when the only information we have are those two arcs (those arcs are not paths, rather the last satellite ping happened somewhere on the arc).

How can anybody create a computer model with just this information? Or does it mean that the modelers have more information available than the general public?

how they can come up with such specific paths?

Diagrams in news organisations graphics published in March and April 2014 vary widely in what they show and appear to be artistic impressions. These should not be relied on in any way.

To calculate a variety of likely flight paths, it seems Inmarsat engineers, and other parties to the official investigation, used a number of sets of information including but not limited to:

satellite communication timings giving distances from satellite.
satellite communications frequency variations giving relative motions.
knowledge of variations in satellite orbit.
knowledge of variations in satellite temperatures (daylight exposure etc)
knowledge about signal processing timings in various equipment.
characteristics of the aircraft (load, fuel consumption rates, etc)
autopilot modes of operation (route, heading, track. magnetic, true, ...)
etc.

The analysis was improved and refined over time, resulting in newer estimates of the flight path and final coordinates.

Other independent groups of people have published their own analyses which come to broadly similar conclusions. E.g. the self-titled "Independent Group" associated with Duncan Steel

Inmarsat paper, October 7 2014.

A paper "The Search for MH370" published in the Journal of Navigation by Ashton et al. (2014). describes in some detail how the Inmarsat engineers used satellite data to determine probable flight paths for the aircraft.

ATSB report. August 18 2014

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau released a revised version of their June 26 report.

ATSB report. June 26 2014

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau release a 54-page report "MH370 - Definition of
Underwater Search Areas" which goes into greater detail than any prior official report and shows much more of the calculations that were performed on the Burst Frequency Offsets to calculate probable final position of MH370.

In particular the appendices describe some  equations that were used.

A small extract from the report

Raw Satellite Data. May 27 2014

The raw satellite data was made available on 27/5/2014 in response to requests from relatives of the passengers. This shows burst timing offsets (BTO) and Burst Frequency Offsets (BFO) for communications between the Inmarsat ground station and MH370.

ATSB document. May 26 2014.

The Australian ATSB released a factsheet that outlines what is known and reiterates the general description of how the tracks were calculated:

  By
  taking the maximum speed of the aircraft into account, the rings can be reduced in length to arcs – there
  are some areas of the rings it simply could not have reached.

  There are a large number of speeds and headings that can be
  consistent with a BFO recording. These are limited, however, by the operational constraints of the aircraft.
  Candidate paths of different speeds were created which met the BTO ring location/time constraints and
  the predicted BFO values of these paths have been compared with the recorded values. The better the
  match, the higher the probability that the path was close to that of MH370.

Release of raw data from satellites. May 27th 2014

On May 21st 2014 CNN reported that the satellite data and description of analysis would be published. No date has been specified.

  "In line with our commitment towards greater transparency, all parties are working for the release of the data communication logs and the technical description of the analysis for public consumption," Inmarsat and the Malaysian aviation officials said in a joint statement.

Inmarsat Statement. March 24 2014

On March 24th 2014, Inmarsat stated that a new analysis of the records of satellite handshakes with MH370 were able to use doppler effects in the signals together with an analysis of similar satellite handshake data from other Malaysian 777s to determine that MH370 flew into the Indian Ocean and ruled out flight paths to the previously described northern corridor.

From INFORMATION PROVIDED TO MH370 INVESTIGATION BY UK AIR ACCIDENTS INVESTIGATION BRANCH (AAIB)
25/03/14

Malaysian Defence Minister statement. March 21 2014.

On March 21st, a little light was shed on this process by a statement attributed by New Straights Times to Malaysian Defence Minister and acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

  "The investigations team received the complete raw Inmarsat satellite data, which included the six handshakes at approximately 3 pm on Wednesday, March 12."

  "This type of data is not normally used in investigations of this sort.
  It is only because we have so little other information to go on in this difficult and unprecedented situation that the data is being used.

  "Upon receiving the raw data, the Malaysian authorities immediately discussed with the US team how this information might be used. The US team and the investigations team then sent the data to the US, where further processing was needed before it could be used.

  "Initial results were received on Thursday, March 13 at approximately 1.30 pm, but it was agreed by the US team and the investigations team that further refinement was needed, so the data was again sent back to the US.

  "The results were received at approximately 2.30 pm on Friday, March 14 and presented to the investigations team at a high-level meeting at 9 pm on Friday.
  The UK AAIB, who had also been processing this data independently, presented their results - which concurred with ours and those of the US team – at that meeting.

  "The Prime Minister was briefed on this satellite information at 8 am Saturday, March 15 and publicly announced it at the press conference at Saturday lunchtime.

(my emphasis)

Obviously the above does not describe the actual calculations involved. However it does confirm that the satellite data had six handshakes (presumably at hourly intervals up to 08:11).

Early speculation

The graphic below, illustrates one idea for how these track might have been deduced. It is a result of speculation rather than a reporting of information actually provided by the people who made the calculation.

The graphic suggests that the NTSB calculated possible paths based on data that is not public and that the NTSB were able to assign probabilities to those paths. As far as I know, neither Inmarsat, the NTSB nor the Australian government (or it's agencies) have made public the data or method of calculating these tracks.

The graphic below suggests several Inmarsat pings were used (the example shows 01:11, 02:11, 04:11, 05:11, 06:11, 07:11 and 08:11 but these are probably speculation).

So far as is publicly known, there was no ping at 09:11 or later which suggests the flight ended between 08:11 and 09:11. This is broadly consistent with maximum fuel range of the aircraft. The labelled NTSB solutions suggest that NTSB calculated that no other constant speed (and heading?) tracks fit the data.

source Scott Henderson

which says ...

  For a constant speed track, distance between ping arc intersections will be equal.

  NTSB solutions are based on constant speed straight track. Curve in track shown due to map projection

A later version of this graphic adds a disclaimer saying that the tracks and zones are not accurate and are symbolic only.

We do know that NTSB sent staff to Malaysia to assist in the search. We know that Inmarsat provided data to the investigating teams.


What's the name and purpose of a barrier raised behind a carrier based jet? I saw this picture in Wikipedia with a Su-33 jet on carrier deck with some barrier raised from the deck behind the jet tail:

What is this barrier for and what's the official term for it?

The official name is a Jet Blast Deflector.

As the name suggests, they direct the fast-moving and hot air from the jet engines upwards. This protects the personnel and equipment behind the departing aircraft from getting blown around or damaged from the jet blast. Because of the high temperature of the jet blast, they may have active cooling systems, and must be allowed to cool sufficiently before being used as regular deck again.

To illustrate the risks, see this video, which shows a vehicle being blown away by a 747.

There was also a recent event in Pakistan where a 737 damaged the tarmac (and, as a result, itself) during an engine run-up.

To make a comparison, each engine on a 737-400 can produce up to 22,000 lbf (98 kN) of thrust. The Su-33 in your picture has two engines close together which can each produce 16,750 lbf (74.5 kN) of thrust, or 28,214 lbf (125.5 kN) with afterburner.  That's a total of 56,248 lbf of thrust in afterburner, or 2.5 times the force of one engine on the 737-400. Of course, this does not directly equate to jet blast or temperatures, but it is a good indicator of the forces involved.

To provide a better idea of the jet blast, see this chart (based on the 737-800). At 20 m behind the tail (which is about 20 m behind the engines), the jet blast can reach 300 km/hr at takeoff thrust. For more details about jet blast on the 737 series, see the Boeing documentation.

The CFM56-3 (used on the 737-400) can produce exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of up to 930 C at takeoff. This will mix with the cooler bypass air (and ambient air) to reach cooler temperatures further behind the engine. Military jet engines have a smaller bypass ratio, which means there is less of the cool bypass air in the exhaust to mix with the hot core exhaust.


Do aircraft really have text communication over FMC? I saw a photography that is obviously Photoshopped that sparked my curiosity

Does aircraft have text messages transmission? Can text messages or text strings be transported over the air like transmitting METAR strings over a frequency like ATIS? I remember something about in flight printers that would print hard copies of mid-flight flight plan changes so perhaps something like that can be theoritically used for transmission.

In a simple manner. Is communication over FMC ever done?

Yes. Text messaging over ACARS has been commonplace since the 1980s. It is air-to-ground and ground-to-air, not air-to-air. It is commonly used to exchange flight plans, weight and balance data, ATC clearances, schedule updates for passengers' connecting flights, and other operational purposes, but also sometimes for fun (e.g
birthday wishes, sports game results). It's primarily used between an aircraft and the airline's dispatching department, but can also be used directly between the pilots and ATC under some circumstances.


What's Concorde's engine fan blade tip speed at full thrust? I can't find anything on the web about the Concorde's Snecma engine fan blade tip speed at full thrust. Any ideas?

Apart from the fact that the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 engines were pure turbojets so they did not have any fan, it's pretty easy to calculate (better approximate) the tip speed of the first Low-Pressure Compressor's wheel.

The Olympus 593 had a diameter of about 1.2 meters [Wikipedia]. Let's say the first compressor wheel had a diameter of about 1 meter.
As we're talking about the LP Compressor, we're interested in N1 speed. At 100% N1 speed, we are at 6500 rpms [FAA Type Certificate No. E20EU] (for N2, at 100%, 8530 rpms).
Now it's just math to calculate, or, just use an online converter.

The result, as DoRoCro already wrote in his answer, is about 340 m/s.


Who is the pilot in command when the pilot in command is resting? On long-haul flights, there are extra pilots on board so that the flight crew gets a chance to rest. When the pilot in command gets relieved and goes to the rest area, who is legally in charge of the airplane? Is the PIC role transferred to one of the pilots in the cockpit, or is the person who was relieved still ultimately in command? (I'm especially interested in what happens if the relieved PIC feels that the crew is mishandling the aircraft and wants to come back and take control).

The PIC is ultimately responsible for operation and safety, for everybody and everything on board, from pre-flight preparation till post-flight activities.

On long-haul flights there must be a sufficient number of relief crew members to substitute the nominal flight crew. This is regulated in national legislation and implemented in airline standard operation procedures (SOP). Details are apparently different from airline to airline.

The Captain is the highest ranking member of the flight crew, and will be designated as PIC. When the PIC takes a rest, there must be a qualified substitute available. That will be a Senior First Officer (SFO) in some airlines. In any case, the substitute will have gone through a dedicated training.

During the rest of the PIC, the substitute will act as PIC. The sleeping Captain remains PIC, and remains ultimately responsible. If there is an incident during his rest, it would have to be investigated if that incident was (partially) due to earlier decisions, actions or omissions, or if the problem was caused entirely by the relief crew.


How do cross-wind correction controls help while on the ground with wings level? When taxiing, taking off and rolling out we are told to use cross-wind correction inputs. Assuming a headwind, you bank into the wind by raising the aileron on the windward side and lowering the other aileron.

However, it appears that just before you take off, even with the wings level, holding the ailerons as above helps the plane avoid skidding sideways on its wheels. I understand the physics once you are airborne and the wings are no longer level (you will slip into the wind). But what I don’t understand is why holding up aileron on the windward side helps prevent skidding sideways, even with the wings level.

How do the physics work to prevent sideways force on the gear? Or am I imagining that the wings are level and in fact the windward wing is lowered?

I’ve felt this more strongly in a Citabria 7ECA or similar light tailwheel, high-wing aircraft, but I think it also applies to a tricycle-gear C172 or similar.

Your assumption is that the wings are level when both main wheels are on the ground. But this is not necessarily true. Even when both wheels are on the ground, the wings can still have a small tilt. The suspension of each gear works independent of the other, and the weight on the wheel determines how much the suspension compresses or the gear strut will bend. By deflecting the ailerons, you re-distribute the lift between the wings, and control gear compression.

Please note that with the ailerons level, your wing will create a sizable rolling moment in a crosswind, which means that the load distribution between the two main wheels is uneven without aileron correction. Also, the fuselage will create a side force of its own, and this force increases with speed as more of the flow around the fuselage will be attached.

The slight tilt angle of the wing also slightly tilts the lift vector, and this, together with the side force of the fuselage, creates the side force which causes the skidding when this side force is large in comparison with the low load on the wheels shortly before takeoff. You need to tilt the wing into the crosswind to create a counter-force which can compensate the side force of the fuselage, only then the whole aircraft will not experience a side force.

I know, the picture below shows a glider and not a Citabria, but the principle is the same. The high wing arrangement creates a sizable rolling moment even without dihedral.


How do GFRP and CFRP compare? I have seen that aircraft mostly use CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in large composition. But in some places like the leading edge of the wing, fin, and radome, GFRP (glass-fiber reinforced plastic) is used, why?

The reason for using glassfiber on radome coverings is simple: Electromagnetic transparency. Carbon fiber conducts electricity, so it will absorb much of what the antenna radiates away or "listens" for. Glassfibers are good insulators and transparent to radar waves.

The reason for glassfiber on forward-facing surfaces is impact tolerance. Compared to carbon fiber, glassfibers have a higher elongation at fracture and are a homogenous material. First to the elongation point:

Energy absorption is the integral under the stress-strain curve, and a higher elongation at fracture gives glassfiber better energy absorption qualities. The peak loads for carbon might be a bit higher, but carbon breaks at an elongation of less than 2% while glass stretches to 5% before rupture. Both, however, are inferior to most metals which have a phase of plastic deformation before rupture.

The second point is based in the anisotropic nature of carbon fiber:
When a carbon fiber is loaded in a direction away from its lengthwise axis, it will break easily. Glass, being an isotropic material, has the same strength in all directions, so a glassfiber composite is much better in taking arbitrary and impact loads.

Now that the question is much more general, here are the main differences:

Price must come first on this list. Glassfiber is dirt cheap compared to carbon fiber. If I look up the prices for woven material at Aircraft Spruce, a yard of 50" graphite cloth is about 30 USD while a comparable E-glass cloth runs at less than 10 USD.
Density is next: Carbon fiber weighs 1.7 g/mm³ but glassfiber 2.5 g/mm³. Both have similar strength, so a carbon structure will easily be lighter than a glassfiber structure.
Stiffness: Carbon fiber is about three times stiffer than glassfiber. Extreme varieties like pitch-based carbon fibers can be up to 10 times stiffer but offer few benefits. The higher stiffness produces less flex of a wing spar under the same load. Open class gliders need carbon fiber spar caps, or their wings would have too much dihedral in flight.
Fiber diameter: Glassfibers are much thicker than carbon fibers, which makes them better in compression loads. Finer fibers need better support from the epoxy matrix against buckling.

I mentioned conductivity already, but one funny consequence from the anisotropic nature of carbon fiber has not been mentioned yet: Along their fiber axis, carbon fibers have a negative coefficient of thermal expansion. When combined with the proper amount of epoxy resin, this allows to build structures which keep their length constant when temperature changes. Note that the structure will still expand perpendicular to the fiber axis when heated, though.

Another peculiarity is that transparency reverses in the optical spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Now glass is transparent and carbon is opaque. This made the designers of the first carbon fiber fuselage install a lightbulb in the tailboom, so the preflight inspection can be done in the same way as it is done in glassfiber gliders.


What does "5B3/P" in CFM56-5B3/P mean? For the CFM56 engine model CFM56-5B3/P, what does "5B3/P" mean?

It's a more specific designation of the general engine. There are lots of variants of the CFM56 in your case the 5B3/P variant:

  CFM56-5B3/P: Same as CFM56-5B1, except for increased thrust rating and
  redesigned high pressure compressor, high pressure turbine, and low
  pressure turbine.

The type certificate has the specific info for it as well. There is also lost of info on wikipedia under the -5B series section.


If an airliner turns back midway, how is the route planned? There's several incidents of "flights to nowhere", e.g. https://onemileatatime.com/klm-787-nine-hour-flight-to-nowhere/
After a pilot decides to turn back, how is this handled from a routing/flight plan/ATC perspective?  I assume ATC needs a flight plan back to the airport; is this just generated "on the fly"?  Who does this, ATC or the airline's dispatch?
I'm not talking about a diversion to the nearest airport but actually returning to the origin airport after the flight's been underway for a while.  I assume this needs to be coordinated with all the FIRs/centers.

A diversion is a diversion, regardless of whether it is to the nearest airport, back to your origin airport or some other airport that is attractive, which may depend on what sort of facilities are needed (gates, fuel, maintenance, etc.).
The pilot simply tells ATC their new destination, and ATC amends their flight plan and gives the pilot a new clearance to follow. Depending on how far it is, the pilot (with the help of their dispatcher, if applicable) may request a specific route, or they may leave it up to ATC. That flight plan update is also automatically forwarded to all the relevant FIRs, just like the original version was.


Are there any examples of sustained human-powered flight above ground effect? Every video of human-powered flight has the plane or helicopter so close to the ground that it benefits from ground-effect. Is there any exception to this rule, i.e. a still-air-level-ground human powered altitude record that is high enough to leave ground effect?

The FAI's photo of Daedalus shows its height above the sea to be considerably more than its wingspan, putting it out of ground effect.
(Wikipedia says that most of the flight was 15 to 30 feet high, well within ground effect because the wingspan was 112 feet.)

I couldn't find any official FAI record for height achieved by a human-powered aircraft, though.


Do high-wing aircraft represent more difficult engineering challenges than low-wing aircraft? Generally, it's easier to make things strong in compression than in tension.

In a low-wing plane, the weight of the aircraft is on top of the wing; in a high-wing aircraft, it hangs from it.

It seems to me (I'm not an engineer) that the area of attachment in the latter case has to do a lot more difficult work (suspending the rest of the plane by its bolts) than in the former (bearing the weight from below).

And since in a high-wing aircraft all the structure is in tension (everything is hanging from something above it), presumably it's not just the wing and its attachment points that are affected, but most of the fuselage that has to withstand this tension.

Are these intuitions true, and if so, what are their engineering implications?

Actually, in aircraft construction tension is preferable to compression: aeroplanes are thin walled structures, and compression forces introduce buckling.

In a low wing aircraft, the fuselage is pressing downwards on the top half of the wing, the bit that is under compression. In fact, quite complicated frame structure members are required for the fuselage/wing intersection for low wing aircraft: they need wing dihedral, so the wing looks pre-buckled at the spot of largest bending moment.

So although high vs low wing does have some differences in structural implementation, those are not the deciding factors in the layout. The design considerations for operational use are what drives the choice high-low-mid wing. Picture below from Torenbeek, depicting the Galaxy C-5.

High wing designs are usually applied for aircraft that need quick loading/unloading, and/or operate from airports with limited ground equipment.

Wing out of the way: good for loading/unloading, and for long extended flaps on STOL aircraft.
Floor close to the ground: easy cargo handling, good access for passengers, no need for airstrips.
More room for propellers.
Lowest induced drag at high lift.
Self stabilising roll behaviour.

Mid wing has the lowest drag of the three layouts at high speed, but poses a particular problem in running the wing through the fuselage. The wing must be a complete structure, because it has the highest bending loads in the wing centre and we don't want any holes there, best to make the hole in the fuselage to lead the wing through. But this bit of the fuselage cannot be used for passengers or cargo.
Low wing is usually applied in passenger aircraft because:

The undercarriage can be easily retracted.
The wing forms an impact structure that absorbs energy in case of a crash. Although the fuel tanks are in the wing...
The wing is fully underneath the floor and does not impede on the thoroughfare in the fuselage.
Optimal use of ground effect during take-off and landing.

In the 1950s, for the F27 the decision was taken to implement a high-wing design for its intended successor to the DC3: market analysis showed a significant market share outside Europe and the USA, at airports without the latest facilities. From wikipedia:

  while a high-mounted wing had been selected as it produced a higher lift coefficient than a lower counterpart, it also enabled easier ground loading due to a lower floor level and provided unfettered external views to passengers without any weight increase.

And who wouldn't want unfettered external views?


What does the Emergency Avionics switch do? In almost every light aircraft I've ever flown, I recall their being a rocker switch marked "Emergency Avionics". Here's an example:

It's never really occurred to me to ask an instructor/owner what it does nor when to use it. Can somebody here explain what it does exactly?

Also, it appears to always be an aftermarket addition (the switch never quite matches the rest of the panel), could there perhaps be a reason why this second avionics master was added?

A quick google will turn up some answers. The consensus seems to be that it is just another switch in parallel with the Avionics Master Switch, such that, if the master switch fails, the "emergency" switch can be used to connect the juice instead! The point being that the master switch is a single  point of failure for the entire avionics suite (radios, transponder and nav) - if that switch fails in flight, you lose everything!

EDIT:

From the Piper Dakota (PA-28-236) Maintenance Manual:

  Electrical power for various avionics components is controlled by an avionics master switch located near
  the top of the instrument panel between radio stacks. It controls power to all radios through the aircraft master
  switch.

  An emergency bus switch is provided to supply auxiliary power to avionics bus in event of a radio master
  switch circuit failure. The emergency bus switch is located behind lower right shin guard, to left of the circuit
  breaker panel.


Why did Air France flight 447 fail to recover from the stall? I have read the wikipedia entry about the accident but I don't understand why did the stall happen and why the plane couldn't recover from the stall.

Correct me if I am wrong but I would think a plane would naturally recover from a stall situation by pitching down the noise by itself with no control inputs needed and gaining speed (due to the fall).  The AoA would be back to safe values to generate lift again and the plan would be stabilized.

I don't get how a plane like that would fall from 35,000 feet with its engines set at 100% thrust.

I‘ll attempt a very brief answer based on the report against your questions:

1) Why did the aircraft stall?
The aircraft stalled because crew pitched the aircraft up beyond the performance limit at that altitude (they pitched into a climb which the available engine thrust could not sustain, bleeding off speed until the aircraft stalled).

2) Why was power not reduced?
I don’t know, but in my view that didn’t play a crucial role, either.

3) Why did the aircraft not pitch down by itself?
Because crew didn’t realise they were stalled and continued to apply „nose-up“ control input. Seemingly inconsistent behaviour of the stall warning system and unexpected parameters on their instruments (i.e. a combination of speed and vertical speed not ever seen in normal flight) contributed to the situation.


why does the concorde's nose go up and down I have wondered this when looking at pictures of the concorde and sometimes it was down and other times it was up and why cant the commercial airplanes have this system.

When the Concorde is in supersonic flight, the shape of the fuselage has to be very aerodynamic.  On landing, the attitude of the plane is very nose high, so the nose comes down to allow the pilots to see the runway.


Why did the Solar Impulse flight take so long? The Solar Impulse just made big news for flying from Japan to Hawaii on a solar-powered plane in five days.

But five days seems really long. Let's do the math on that. The distance from Japan to Hawaii is about $6,611 km$, so $6,611 km/5 days/24 hours = 55km/h$

So it was flying an average of $55km/h$? That seems too slow to maintain lift.

No, it could not fly much faster with the available energy.

Lift is a question of wing area and dynamic pressure. Solar Impulse 2 has 269.5 m² wing area to carry its 2.3 tons of mass. This is a wing loading of just 8.53 kg/m²; much less than even gliders have (they start at around 30 kg/m²). This allows it to fly very slowly; if we assume it flies at the lift coefficient $c_L$ for optimum range for propeller aircraft
$$c_L = \sqrt{\pi \cdot AR \cdot \epsilon \cdot c_{D0}}$$
and guess the zero-lift drag coefficient $c_{D0}$ to be 0.029 and the aspect ratio $AR$ to be 19.18, the result is 1.377. This is already close to the maximum lift coefficient, which I expect to be 1.6. Now we need the lift equation to calculate the speed which is needed to keep it flying at this lift coefficient:$$v = \sqrt{\frac{2\cdot m\cdot g}{c_L\cdot S\cdot\rho}}$$
Let's assume it flies in 9000 m altitude where air density $\rho$ is only 0.4671 kg/m³, the result is 16.13 m/s or 58 km/h. Now consider that it will fly at the beginning, late at night and at the end of the flight at lower altitudes, and may not be able to fly a straight course (maybe to fly around bad weather), and the 55 km/h look entirely plausible, if not outright speedy. At sea level, the optimum range speed is only 9.96 m/s or 35.86 km/h, just about its take-off airspeed.

Flying faster would need more energy and would not allow Solar Impulse 2 to recharge its batteries for the night hours. Solar flight must be slow to be possible at all.


How do I modify the aircraft weight and balance after a battery replacement? I am looking to replace my Gill battery with a Concord.  The regulations appear to allow me to do this as an owner.

However, the Concord battery weighs 2 lbs more.

I cant find it in the regs if I can legally modify the weight and balance for the airplane myself, or do I need an A&P to sign it off, possibly as a minor alteration?

Is the Concord battery on the approved equipment list?  Is it approved to be in your airplane due to it being PMA'd?

The point is that the battery has to be approved by the FAA and if it isn't you'll need to get it approved.  It's not a major redesign requiring form 337 but a minor alteration to it's approved type certificate.

To answer your question, you can alter your weight and balance but it must be signed off by an A&P mechanic.


What do multiple slashes in METAR mean? The current METAR for Stanstead in the UK says:

  EGSS 031520Z AUTO 29011KT 9999 FEW021/// //////TCU 07/02 Q1022

I do not know how to interpret the /// and //////. From what I remember multiple slashes means that data is missing, however the data in this metar seems complete.

What does FEW021/// mean?
TCU means Towering Cumulous, which makes sense, but what do the leading ////// mean in this context?

Complete, unless you want to know the height of base of those TCU's!

The bulk of the information you're after can be found in AIS-GEN 3.5 Section 10.17 - AUTO METAR coding

In describing the coding used by automated systems, it gives this example

  NNNhhh/// Cloud detected, but it is unknown whether it is a convective cloud type (ie TCU or CB)

And this one

  //////TCU Towering Cumulus detected, but no information on its height or cloud cover is available

Which more-or-less covers your two questions, I hope.


Why are liquid ring compressors not used in a jet engine? A question has been asked here before whether sliding vane compressors could be used in place of axial compressors on jet engines since they have a high compression ratio per stage (Why were rotary vane compressors never used in jet engines?), the answer being that the sliding seal would give out at the RPMs required.

What about a liquid ring pump?

It's essentially a sliding vane compressor where the seal is provided by the mass of liquid moving along the circumference. Is it possible to maintain a mass flow of the same order as axial compressors with these? Please ignore the question of cooling of the liquid for the purpose of this discussion.

You said to ignore the cooling of the liquid, but that's something that cannot be ignored.  With the compression ratios achieved in typical jet engine compressors, the air leaving the last stage of the compressor may be 800 - 1000 deg F.  You won't find a lot of liquids that won't just completely vaporize at those temperatures.  Yes you could potentially cool the liquid, but the cooling apparatus would add a huge amount of weight, as well as consume a lot of power.


How to remove a course reversal (hold) on a Garmin 530W? How can I remove a course reversal, (hold) from the FLP page on an RNAV approach ?  If I want to do a straight in (NoPT) it will not allow me to remove the hold without removing the whole waypoint.

When loading a straight in approach into a GNS430/530, once you select the airport, approach and IAF, then hit ENT to either load approach or load the approach and activate, it will bring up a dialogue which asks if you want to fly a course reversal at the IAF.  If you select no, then no hold will be placed in the flight plan.  If you have entered the course reversal at the IAF for a straight in approach, you can still remove it by opening the FPL page, highlight the hold and press CLR to remove it.  It will ask you if you want to remove the course reversal one final time.  Select yes and press ENT.


How does thrust reverser selection have a destabilising effect on the rudder and increase the lateral skidding tendency of the aircraft? I was reading in the FCTM landing section normal procedures the below paragraph.

  The reversers have a destabilizing effect on the airflow around the
  rudder and thus decrease the efficiency of the rudder. Furthermore
  they create a side force, in case of a remaining crab angle, which
  increases the lateral skidding tendency of the aircraft.

Could someone please explain as to how this effects airflow over the rudder and increase the lateral skidding tendency of the aircraft?

This is called rudder blanking. While I was searching for it, I came across this image

(Source)
As the Skybrary article mentions

Rudder blanking is a particular risk to aircraft with rear mounted engines and "T" tails.

I emphasized the word particular since I perceive it as an indication that it's a risk for other planes as well without rear mounted engines.
Now the flow from trust reversers, disturbs the airflow around the rudder reducing its effectiveness. In strong crosswind you rely on rudder to keep the aircraft centered on the runway. If you apply thrust reversers right after touchdown, you reduce the effectiveness of the rudder and in turn it might reduce the crab angle making it harder to keep the aircraft centered.
Addendum
I will try to explain with a graphic, though as I've already stated in my comment, I'm not an expert.
As you can see in this image taken from Wikipedia, the thrust reverser output is not blocked by the wing, so it's quite safe to assume there is a jet similar to the first image.

I would estimate that the area of that vertical jet is more or less contained in the red circle seen in the next image. The free stream will push the turbulent jet from the reverser towards the back (as you can see in the first picture) and disturb the flow around the fin. The orange area is parallel to the free stream and shows the direction of the turbulent flow which might not be exactly the same in reality as the fluid particles have a tendency not to follow straight lines.
The plane is rotated 15 degrees to simulate a moderate "crab angle". From the picture posted in GdD's answer, you can assume this can be more if the vertical wind component is high enough.

(Source of original image)
Now one thing you might need to consider is that the engines of a wing mounted engine plane have significantly more distance from the vertical stabilizer compared to the tail mounted engine plane. That distance might be able to weaken the effect of the stream, enough to not cause accidents like this mentioned by Sports Racer in his comment. But that doesn't mean the problem is not there, hence the warning from Airbus.


How can I calculate the fuel consumption of an Airbus 320-200 at various loads? I want to know:

What is the fuel consumption of an Airbus A320-200 - 180 Seats, at 100% load factor for a distance of 2000 km?
What is the fuel consumption of an Airbus A320-200 - 180 Seats, at 80% load factor for a distance of 2000 km?

If you need precise values, you need to provide much more detail. Fuel consumption is affected by many parameters; see this answer for more detail.

For a precise estimate it will be best to employ a simulation software; see the answers to this question for more detail.

If you are just interested in a general estimate, the venerable Breguet equation will already give good results. First we need to know how much difference the 20% in load factor makes: The average mass of a passenger plus baggage for short-range trips is 100 kg, so the zero-fuel mass would be OEW + 18 t = 60.6 t in the 100% case and 3.6 tons less in the 80% case. Allow for 3 t of fuel reserves and plug that into the Breguet equation, using a fuel burn of $b_f$ = 0.000018 kg/Ns and a speed of Mach 0.78, which equates to $v$ = 262 m/s in 11.000 m altitude:
$$m_1 = m_2 \cdot e^{\frac{R\cdot g\cdot b_f}{v\cdot L/D}}$$
The L/D should be 18 and for the range we use R = 2000.000 m. $m_1$ is take-off mass and $m_2$ landing mass. This gives $m_1$ = 68.54 t for the 100% case and $m_1$ = 64.66 t for the 80% case. To be realistic, you would need to include different fuel flow during climb and descent, but the real value shouldn't be too far from the 5 rsp. 4.7 tons we get from the Breguet equation.

Note that when you repeat the calculation for 5,700 km range, the take-off mass comes out at 78.7 t for the 100% load factor, which is almost exactly the MTOW of the A-320. With 2.3 t of reserves, the Breguet equation gives you exactly the specified performance of the A-320-200. This should give you some confidence in those results.


Is there a such thing as an ARINC label for the yaw angle? Is there a way to check the yaw angle on the ARINC bus? If so, what is the associated ARINC-429 label?

Non-authoritative list of some labels:

ARINC 429 Labels

But labels are not all defined in ARINC standard, a specific LRU can define custom values. So you need to get label list from LRU documentation. For instance, labels used by Laseref VI IRS to output values to the bus are:

Source: Honeywell

Your question is ambiguous about what you are looking for: Yaw is the rotation around an axis normal to the plan defined by longitudinal and pitch axes. The origin can be multiple:

It can be seen absolute, for instance referenced to the north, and it would be the heading. It can defined relatively to a given direction, e.g. the wind, and it would be computed from other values. More likely it can be a rate.

Here are some related labels:

Yaw rate = 330
Heading: True = 314, Mag = 320
Track angle: True = 313, Mag = 317
Wind direction: True = 316

(octal values)

Could you provide details about your needs?


What is this propeller on the A330 MRRT refueling pod? Illustration taken from this youtube video

Earlier in the video, it can be seen moving:

Is it to provide mechanical power for the boom operation ?

It’s a ram air turbine which drives a fuel pump to provide pressure to transfer gas through the hose and drogue to the receiving aircraft.


Can civilian aircraft fly through or land in restricted airspace in an emergency? This is a super hypothetical question of mine. I was wondering if civilian pilots who happened to be faced with a severe emergency could fly through or possibly request to land in restricted airspace? Mainly I am referring to Area 51?

FAR 91.3 states that any pilot in command may deviate from any regulation or rules to the extent needed to deal with the emergency.  That includes entering restricted or prohibited airspace.

In the example that you suggested, yes you could do so and land at the Groom Lake flight test facility at KXTA, provided you could reach their controllers or contact Nellis Approach Control declaring an emergency.  I will say that if you do enter R-4808 N and land there, don't expect them to roll out the welcome mat.  You will be immediately met by USAF Military Police who will arrest you, most likely at gunpoint, and spend several hours, if not days, there or outside the compound being extensively questioned by Air Force Security personnel, the FBI and Homeland Security.  Your aircraft will be impounded and inspected, possible indefinitely, and search warrants issued for your property.  If they find out that you faked an emergency to enter that compound, you are in very serious trouble and face a variety of federal charges including trespass upon a classified installation and whatever else the DoJ can throw at you.

In addition, you would need a very, very good reason to even be anywhere near Area 51, as it is in the middle of a military reservation geographically the size of the nation of Switzerland in the middle of south central Nevada.  There are no published routes over the airspace and all commercial and civilian traffic is kept far, far away.  Details about the airfield are not published on government aeronautical charts or regional A/FDs.  See the VFR sectionals and enroute charts below.

While Area 51 is a pretty extreme example, people have had emergencies and landed in military or other restricted facilities.  The usual response from the authorities is to detain and question you to determine what happened and inspect the aircraft to verify your story.  If it's a legitimate emergency, no harm is done and they will release you and the aircraft; the NTSB will file and incident report and that's it.


What is the difference between Part 135 and Part 129? I work with small commercial aircraft. Up until now I have understood Part 91 to mean that the flight has been filed as private and Part 135 to mean that the flight has been filed as commercial, to put it simply.

Recently, after a problem I can't go into, my colleague suggested that the problem could have been caused if the carrier was not "Part 129 approved".

What is the difference between Part 129 and Part 135?
Are there any cases in which you would need one and not the other, or both, or neither?
Are there any other "Parts" that can affect a foreign carrier flying to/from/within the US?

I'm not at all sure what you're asking, but maybe I can at least point you towards more information.

First, the parts you mentioned define operating rules for different flight types (I'm simplifying a bit here):

Part 91: rules for all flights in the US
Part 121: rules for flights by a US airline
Part 129: rules for flights by a foreign airline in the US
Part 135: rules for 'on demand' (usually charter) flights by a US operator

Any given flight will operate under one or more of those sets or rules, e.g. a US airline flight from New York to Los Angeles would follow the rules in parts 91 and 121; a foreign flight from London to New York would follow parts 91 and 129 (while in US airspace). Individual operators and airlines also have OpSpecs that are approved by the FAA and that can add more rules for specific situations.

And I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like 14 CFR 129.119(c) effectively applies part 121 to foreign airlines too, by requiring them to comply with the same rules as US airlines:

  (c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices,
  procedures, and other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for
  U.S. air carriers for the areas to be operated in.

Without knowing what your mysterious problem was (and I understand you can't share it), I don't think it's possible to say much more than that.

(By the way, "filing" is something different. Filing a flight plan is required for various reasons but they apply to all aircraft, even private flights. If I want to fly a C172 under IFR then I have to file essentially the same flight plan information that an A380 pilot will file.)


Depth and range for FDR/CVR black box detection What is the maximum depth range of a FDR underwater, at which it is able to be detected by receivers?

I want to know the maximum range of ULB pinger locator if it's submerged.

The maximum range if it's transmitting on 37.5kHz is usually between 1 and 2 kilometers in poor conditions and around 4 to 5 kilometers in normal conditions and up to 6 or 7 in good conditions. The range depends on the frequency it's transmitting but the ULB's work on 37.5kHz.


What is more environmentally friendly? An A320 or a car? Presuming the A320 is at least 80% full (of passengers) and comparing it to a typical road car with 2 people inside, which one is more environmentally friendly, per passenger mile?

I have attempted to do some rudimentary calculations, but then was reading that because aircraft release their emissions at altitude, this offsets (?) some of the environmental impact.

I'm going to simplify and assume that jets and cars burn the same fuel, and output the same exhaust, CO2, NOx and all. I'm going to compare only short-haul flights against cars.

According to Wikipedia, an A-320-NEO does 1.95L/100km per seat. Assuming flying at 80% capacity, that gives us 2.4L/100km per seat. According to
The Car Guide, a 2019 Honda Civic does 6.5L/100km. Assuming an average car carries 2 people, that gets 3.2L/100km. It would seem like flying is slightly better, using this simplistic measure.

Keep in mind that the longer you fly, the better the mileage, since the takeoff and climb are the fuel guzzling segments.


How do handling characteristics depend on flying with a full vs. an empty tank? Modern aircraft are capable of carrying a lot of fuel to achieve extra-long range; we're at a point where nearly every pair of destinations can be reached non-stop. Carrying so much fuel imposes limits on take-off and landing weight, so the proportion of fuel to airplane weight is not negligible.

I'm wondering how the handling characteristics of airplanes change as the fuel is used up. Do the pilots feel that the airplane is lighter towards the end of the flight? Can they do faster maneuvers with nearly empty fuel tanks?

All aircraft are subject to performance changes due to fuel burn, and since weight, lift, thrust and drag are all tied together for every aircraft in the same way the changes scale nicely. Let's look at some extremes:

One of the most interesting examples of this was the Concorde. Since the Concorde flew ~20K above every one else in the sky in those days it didn't have the same altitude holding restrictions that regular airliners (or any IFR airplane) has. The Concorde was give a block altitude basically to do what it wanted up around 50,000 feet (ca. 15 km). Since it burned quite a bit of fuel at Mach 2.1 and gradually became lighter during the flight the pilots let the plane slowly drift up to gain efficiency as well as gliding distance if needed.

The Concorde also used its many fuel tanks to trim the aircraft as well as cool the nose cone. Fuel burn was closely monitored and constantly pumped around to ensure the aircraft remained in trim.

Even the dinky Piper Archer I fly is affected by partial tanks. If I fly the tanks from full to VFR legal reserves, the CG moves forward a full inch. Granted this does not seem like a lot you will need to trim to compensate for this throughout the flight. You will also be landing a full 240 LBS lighter which is about 10% of the total weight from takeoff. If you come in hot and high you can get yourself into trouble.

Yes you can feel it, generally pilots are not going to do “faster” maneuvers but the maximum G load may change (see your aircraft's POH for more info).

Any smart pilot should practice flying their aircraft at various fuel loads to understand the differences it makes in performance and handling. Some aircraft with things like tip tanks or auxiliary tanks even have fuel burn limitations that define where the fuel is to be burned from and in what order, again going from something as small as a Bonanza all the way up to the Concorde as discussed above.

Just how much can the handling change? Assuming you did your due diligence in pre-flight and calculated your W&B on both ends of the flight accounting for fuel burn to ensure you are within your CG limits the flight should occur with in the limits of the aircraft's POH and generally speaking within operable limits of the airframe. FAA certified aircraft have control force limits so even at the extents of the CG range you should be able to trim the aircraft to handle “normally”. You will likely notice pitch differences (at either extreme) as well as various performance number differences.


What is needed to remove my CPL restriction after becoming a US citizen? I hold a US commercial pilot certificate based on my foreign commercial pilot certificate. This was allowed prior to the ruling that foreign pilots would only be issued a private certificate. On the back of my certificate there is a statement, "Not valid for the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or for agricultural aircraft operations".

I am now a US Citizen and I am wondering what I need to do to have this restriction removed.

You will need to pass the US commercial pilot test to remove the restriction.  If you have enough hours, you may want to consider applying for an ATP certificate.

A couple of things are required to be completed.

Verify the authenticity of your foreign license through the FAA
https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/foreign_license_verification/
Complete an application for the new commercial or ATP license
Pass the appropriate practical test


Can I be a commercial pilot if I've had a dental filling? Is there something like a health requirement in serious airlines? Or is it just a myth? How are potential pilots screened when it comes down to physical requirements?

Here are the mouth and throat requirements for a pilot physical.

The main thing is that it shouldn't affect your ability to fly (i.e. having pain) and ability to communicate over the radio.

Commercial pilots who don't fly regular schedules need a Class 2 medical certificate. Regular schedule commercial pilots need a Class 1.

FAA Class 2 medical requirements
FAA Class 1 medical requirements


Why is 3000 psi the most common hydraulic pressure used in commercial aircraft? As per the article on this website (from 2002), most of the aircraft use 3000 psi as hydraulic pressure:

  Since the 1970s, military aircraft have been using 5000 psi hydraulic
  systems, which use lighter-weight components to actuate the flight
  control surfaces. Passenger aircraft have been relegated to 3000-psi
  hydraulic systems (with the exception of the Concorde, which features
  a 4000 psi system).

What is the technical rationale behind using 3000 psi? Is there any historical reason or regulation to use 3000 psi only?

The linked article directly answers the question

  "Above 3000 psi, using aluminum as a pressure vessel becomes risky," says Galloway. "5000 psi systems almost exclusively rely on steel or titanium. To minimize stresses, the sizes of passages can be reduced. Computational fluid dynamics is also used to minimize pressure drop in critical areas."

3000 PSI was the best you could get with technology in the 1950s, when standardization occurred. Without economical titanium tubing and reservoirs, using steel would incur a weight tradeoff that doesn't make sense.

The A380 was a trigger to the development of 5000 PSI civilian systems because of both the high demands and the long run distances, both due to the size of the plane. I read somewhere that they took a look at the military 5000 PSI systems and realized it would never stand up to commercial use, so little technology was carried over.

Every new design large transport from the A380 onwards (787, A350) is 5000 PSI.


Which aircraft are 76A, 76B, 77E, 77F? I have a list of of aircraft types like so:

0      320
1      76B
2      DH4
3      E95
4      319
5      76A
6      321
7      77F
8      CR9
9      77E
10     OAAG

I was able to identify most of them:

320: Airbus A320
DH4: Bombardier DHC8-Q400/Q400CC (DH4)
E95: Embraer ERJ-195
319: Airbus A319
321: Airbus A321
CR9: Bombardier CRJ-900

However there are some that I cannot understand exactly which model they are. I guess they are Boeing 767 and 777 but I am not sure which model.
Can you help me out to find out which aircraft are these:

76A
76B
77F
77E
OAAG

These are mostly IATA type designators, except for OAAG, 76A, 76B and 77E.

77F is the official IATA designation of the freighter version of the 777.

The rest:

77E seems to be an internal designation used by British Airways for a specific sub-fleet with an increased gross weight.

76B seems same as above just for 767-300ER.

I wasn't able to find anything about 76A (but I'd guess that same as above) and OAAG (perhaps it is part of the registration of an individual aircraft)


Would it be practical that nuclear-powered seaplane (only flying low over the sea) or hovercraft can be an alternative to cargo plane or ship? Would it be feasible that nuclear-powered seaplane (only flying very low over the sea) or nuclear-powered hovercraft can be an alternative to cargo planes or ships? The aircraft speed can reach 200 mi/h like a propeller plane and the container-sized Small Modular Reactor will be possible. So goods could be shipped from China to the US within a week at a relatively low price.
It may be a competitor to cargo planes or ships.

The flying height of this aircraft is only one or two hundred meters.
Flying only over the sea and can landing on the sea.
And the speed is low. It can be safe enough.
Container-sized Small Modular Reactor can be under 100 tons.

After @GdD commented, I got this Ground-effect vehicle.
Edit:
Would fuel-cell-powered Ground-effect vehicles like Boeing_Pelican be a competitor to cargo planes or ships?
Comments
I'm a Chinese guy and I'm interested in amateur radio and always watching some videos on YouTube. Recently I've watched a video about introducing some cheap handheld radios made in china. The YouTuber mentioned that waiting for the shipping from China for 6 weeks. So I thought there's maybe a demand for Speeding up the shipping at a relatively low cost. And so I think the nuclear-powered seaplane may be a choice in the future.

There is a long list of other issues as well, but in order to avoid a too long post I stuck to adressing the points you made in the question.
As with most other things this boils down to the economics. If we assume that the technical challenges can be resolved and you're able to build something that fly according to your description, it will still cost a lot to develop and build. But how much does it cost to carry a full load from A to B compared to the other options, and how long does it take?

It may be a competitor to cargo planes or ships.

Ships are great for freight because they carry a lot of stuff at once cheap but slow. Aircraft are great because they go fast and high, and are less impacted by weather, but at a higher cost while carrying less.

The flying height of this aircraft is only one or two hundred meters.

One of the advantages of existing aircraft is that when something go wrong, you can trade altitude for time to troubleshoot. Flying at a few hundred meters means less time to troubleshoot; being powered by a nuclear reactor means that you will need a lot of redundancies to minimize catastrophic system failures. You'll also be more exposed to weather, which will increase the stress on the airframe compared to other aircraft.

Flying only over the sea and can landing on the sea.

This will expose you to more salt water, which will drive both R&D costs to make the aircraft more resistant to corrosion, but it will also increase maintenance costs in the long run.
Landing and taking off from water is harder in bad weather or at night. A land-based plane can usually count on having runway lights available, and a firm surface to land on. A seaplane has neither but will be affected by waves in addition to wind.
This will also limit the routes you can fly, and therefore also the potential customers for this plane.

And the speed is low. It can be safe enough.

Flying slow will make you less able to avoid bad weather; flying around it might not be possible before it overtakes you. While in theory you could be able to land instantly in case of problems if the cruise speed is close enough to the landing speed, you'll still have weather to contend with.
Crashing at 200kph isn't automatically safer than at 800kph. Using nuclear power will limit which countries would allow operations, as one crash would be enough to destroy an entire area.

Container-sized Small Modular Reactor can be under 100 tons.

This is less than the fuel weight of a 747-8F even if you add engines. According to this question electrical engines are likely to weight around twice as much as comparable turbine engines, so with a bit of goodwill and a lot of assumptions we can replace the engines and fuel load of a 747-8F with a reactor and 8 engines.
Even if this were to work, I suspect the maintenance costs would be huge, and you wouldn't really solve a problem. Chances are you'd go slower than existing aircraft but at a higher price and with a less reliable timetable.


How do aircraft follow the tarmac lines while taxiing? How does the pilot determine he is on the yellow taxi line at all times, since he doesn't have a direct view to the ground below? I am sure there must be some equipment, but I just don't know what.

For most aircraft:
It is just something that you learn. As you approach a line, you have a general sense of where the line is, because you can see the line continue in front of you. This also applies to turning, where you are familiar with the turn radius, and have a sense of where it is. It is similar to a car, in that you can drive down the center line of the road, and still know it is underneath. Scale is just increased.

For tail-draggers:
A tail-dragger is an aircraft that has two front wheels, and one rear wheel, meaning the aircraft is typically pitched up when on the ground. In this situation, the pilot zigzags across the taxiway, looking roughly 30 degrees front left or front right, checking the area in front of him. This isn't so much for following the line though, as it is for ensuring you're not about to hit anything in front of you.

Please let me know if there are any clarifications I can add!


How long does it take to assemble an Airbus A380? How long does it take to assemble an Airbus A380?

Airplanes are not built like cars where after completion, they are showcased at dealership to attract prospective buyers. For larger commercial airplanes, airlines place an order first and then wait for the airplanes to be manufactured, custom modifications completed, inspected by the airline and then delivered. It is a bit complicated process.

However, one of the A380s Emirates ordered, was manufactured and delivered in 80 days:

  Emirates are celebrating having their fiftieth Airbus A380 in service
  with the release of footage showing how 800 workers across Europe came
  together to build the biggest passenger jet in the sky in just 80
  days.


Why are waypoints not named uniquely? Waypoint names are not unique. Why ?

This is unnecessary (it would be possible to use unique names only).
It introduces potential for confusion.

So why are duplicate waypoint names permissible and used ?
I don't see a good reason for that.

ICAO does actually recommend that names for significant points are unique:

3.4 The   unique   five-letter   pronounceable   name-code designator assigned to a significant point shall not be assigned to any other significant point.

However, as you already know, not all names are in fact unique. So why is that?

This is unnecessary (it would be possible to use unique names only).

No, it probably wouldn't. There are millions of named significant points around the world. Assuming points could be named completely randomly (any combination of 5 letters), just about 12 million unique names would be available (26 to the power of 5). However, points are not just named randomly, they have to follow some rules:

3.2 The  name-code  designator  shall  be  selected  so  as  to avoid   any   difficulties   in   pronunciation   by   pilots   or   ATS personnel   when   speaking   in   the   language   used   in   ATS communications.
3.3 The   name-code   designator   shall   be   easily   recognizable   in   voice   communications   and   shall   be   free   of ambiguity  with  those  used  for  other  significant  points  in  the same general area.

You can't just put together 5 letters in a unique way, you have to create a pronounceable, recognizable word, and it can't sound similar to other points in the same area. This significantly limits the number of options.

It introduces potential for confusion.

In theory, yes. In practice, this is not a problem. The risk of pilots navigating to a point with a duplicate name is next to none. Points with duplicate names are never located in close proximity, and most flight management systems will automatically select the nearest point, when inputting a route where duplicates exist. I'm not saying a mishap related to this issue has never happened in the history of aviation, but personally I have never heard of one, and I doubt I ever will.
All references from ICAO Annex 11, Appendix 2


Why were flying boats phased out? Before  WWII, flying boats were a popular form of transport, and the advantages are many: No need to build runways, capability of emergency landing on water, availability of large landing sites and no tire wear and tear. Why have they been abandoned?

The biggest single reason for the decline of flying boats was the proliferation of long runways during World War II. The infrastructure advantage of flying boats – the ability to operate heavy aircraft without long runways – was no longer relevant. Large airfields were a result of the long-range heavy bomber campaigns in Europe and Asia.

Century of Flight has an interesting article that goes a bit more in depth.


Why would an ILS have a glide path angle less than the preferred 3°? According to EASA the preferred Glide Path Angle is 3°:
EASA Easy Access Rules - Page 22 - 4.1.2.1.
There are some airports (e.g. Larnaca 2.75°) which are using a lower Glide Path Angle than 3°. Using a steeper angle (e.g. London City 5.5°) makes sense due to obstacle clearance. But what's the reason for using a flatter angle than recommended?

I won't pretend that I understand the physics of this, but one possible explanation is in FAA Order 6750.16E - Siting Criteria for Instrument Landing Systems. Section 3 discusses terrain effects on the ILS signal, and it notes that approaches that are partially over water may have signal quality issues. One way to address that is using a lower glide angle, per this section on page 3-4 (emphasis mine):

Where the Fresnel zone is smooth but not consistent, as where the
approach path is partially over water, a change may be encountered in
the received signal as the coefficient of reflection changes abruptly.
This effect is unavoidable; however, it can be minimized by
establishing the lowest possible glide angle (and, therefore, the
lowest possible grazing angle) and/or locating the glide slope
antennas within the specified criteria, so that the change in the
received signal does not occur within a critical part of the approach.

I don't know exactly which procedure you're looking at, but Larnaca is a coastal airport and it looks like approaches to 04/22 are at least partially over water.
I have no idea if the same issue occurs with other types of terrain. Someone mentioned in comments that the ILS at KTUL (Tulsa, Oklahoma) has a 2.75° glideslope landing south, but 3° landing north. KTUL isn't on the coast and there are no large bodies of water directly north of it. Maybe the same signal issue occurs there for different reasons, or maybe there's a completely different reason.


Has a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder ever failed in an accident? Has there been a time either during an aviation accident or during normal flight where the flight data recorder or the cockpit voice recorder devices failed or the data was significantly corrupted?

As mentioned in the comment above, there is lot of aviation accidents with unrecovered flight recorders. List from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders


What exactly is the airspace above CYYZ (Toronto)? I'm planning my first real life cross country trip from KFRG to CYKZ. I'm trying to understand the Toronto Airspace:

Is a Canadian Class C airspace the same as a US Class B airspace?
Toronto Pearson International (CYYZ) inner blue circle has this marking 125/25 and the number 25 within a broken square bracket:

I believe this means that the airspace above CYYZ is broken into two parts: class B and class C. Does anyone know the reason for this? I have not seen this structure in the US.

The sectional for this area has the following note:

  TORONTO CLASS C AIRSPACE FOR FLIGHTS BELOW AT AND BELOW 12500' MSL SEE
  TORONTO VTA CHART

I actually purchased a Toronto VFR Terminal Area (VTA) chart but it's even more confusing than the normal sectional. What exactly am I looking for on the chart?

Canadian Class C airspace is generally the same as US Class C airspace. Prior permission is required before entering. Canadian Class B airspace is 12,500' and above. Not a factor for you most likely.

I recommend reading the VFR legend to better understand the markings. It's all there if you purchased a map. The 125/25 marking is the ceiling and floor of the airspace. What you're looking at is the US Sectional, not the Canadian one however. The square [25] refers to the control zone around the airport. You won't be landing in Pearson, so you definitely won't be in their control zone. It extends about 8nm from the airport from surface to 2500' and most busy airports have one. All control zones are class C airspace.

What you're looking for on the VTA is VFR planning. It will have recommended routes to follow, as well warnings and information needed to be able to plan a VFR flight through the area.


What is the best VFR route to CYKZ (ButtonVille) when approaching from the southeast? I'm planning my first real life cross country trip from KFRG to CYKZ. But I'm very confused by the Toronto airspace. My main question is around how to approach ButtonVille airport from the south (say from Buffalo).

Option 1: Buffalo - Hamilton - hug the coast and drop from 3500ft to below 1700ft - ask CYTZ tower to transition thru to CYKZ airspace.
Option 2: Buffalo - Hamilton - Burlington Exec ( CZBA ) - Brampton Caledon ( CNC3 ) - ButtonVille ( CYKZ )
Option 3: I have flown from KFRG (Long Island) to N51 ( Solberg, New Jersey). This was done with my CFI who contacted New York Approach, told them where we were going and then the controllers ( we got handed off to several different controllers ) guided us over JFK and on to Solberg. Is this even an option? I don't see an option to contact Toronto Approach on the sectional.
Option 4: Just for the sake of completeness, there is the option to fly over the water, direct. But this is not recommended in single engine planes for safety reasons.

Can someone who has flown VFR to this airport before advise on this?

I fly out of CYTZ and know the area fairly well. A few things to keep in mind. If you'd like to transition through CYTZ airspace to Buttonville, you'll find controllers there pretty accommodating. Getting in touch with Toronto Terminal is not a problem, you're not asking to cut through Pearson, but you'll be sticking along the shoreline so I wouldn't worry too much.

I would recommend against flying at 1700 feet. That's awfully low. Here's what I would recommend.

Get a VTA sectional for Toronto. This will have much greater detail for the area as well as recommended VFR routes.

Hug the coastline at 2500'. Contact Toronto Approach at 133.4 before entering the zone. Ask for clearance through the zone to Buttonville via the shoreline and city centre. Follow the coast line until you're about 10 miles outside of City Centre (YTZ). There Approach will transition you to Tower if you're at 2500 or below. They will clear you to Buttonville by staying east of the DVP/404. That's the major highway cutting N/S through downtown, east of the airport. Once you're clear of City Centre, you'll get passed over to Buttonville for your landing. As long as you follow DVP/404, you'll find the airport easily. I believe there's a landing fee as well.


What are the exact meanings of roll, pitch and yaw? I lack some 3 dimensional understanding.

What are these angles referenced to? For example, R, P, Y all start from 0, plane is flying horizontal, then it inclines its nose by 90 degrees, moving vertical like a rocket.
Now pitch is 90 degrees, but what now determines the roll?
While moving horizontal, roll may be the angle between the normal vector of the earth's surface and the airplane's up vector.
But when pitch = 90 degrees, what is roll?

Update: Can any (yaw, pitch, roll) triple set exactly describe the attitude/orientation of an aircraft?

The key thing missing in your interpretation is that the order is important. Applying the same roll, pitch and yaw angles in a different order will result in a different orientation (mathematically this is because rotation matrices do not commute).

The correct order is:

Yaw (for an airplane this is typically called the heading)
Pitch
Roll

For any given attitude, there is a unique combination of yaw, pitch and roll angles that will (if applied in this order) give you the correct attitude.

These angles are only meaningful in a given coordinate system. We typically use a system where all angles zero means you are pointing North and wings and body are parallel to the ground. Based on this starting point you would apply the given angles.

(source: Wikimedia from this Wikipedia article: Aircraft principal axes)

See also the answer to this question:
What is the relation between roll angle and pitch angle?

Let me expand a bit on your example:

We start will all angles equal to zero (level, pointing North) and pitch up 90 degrees such that our nose points straight into the sky. Yaw and roll have not changed. Now we start rolling. The roll angle would now tell us in which direction the belly of the aircraft is pointing (0 degrees means belly pointing North, 90 degrees means belly pointing West and right wing pointing North, and so on).


What happens if an A320 goes to full throttle with the parking brake set? The question is simple: what happens?

Is the aircraft going to stay stationary, or will the engine power overcome the brakes? I'm assuming everything is fully functional.

I know the FCOM says not to exceed 75% N1 with the parking brake engaged, but if we did, what would happen?

The question is simple: What happens?

There is a strong chance this happens:

Credit: spiegel.de

  On 15 November 2007, an Airbus A340-600 due to be delivered to Etihad Airways crashed during ground engine test at Airbus' facilities in Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. The brand new US$250 million aircraft, damaged beyond repair. was written off

Source

And there is a stronger chance that nothing bad will happen, but when you exceed the limits clearly stated by the manufacturer of the equipment without any good reason then your insurance cover flies away faster than the exhaust air so if Airbus tells you to not exceed 75% N1 then it is safe to assume that it is not safe to go 76% N1 on both engines with Parking brakes set.


Is Turn and slip indicator a good back-up for the attitude indicator? I was reading my Aircraft general knowledge book, and noticed something peculiar that was written.

The book described that the turn and slip indicator works as a back-up in case of a malfunctioning artificial horizon / attitude indicator.

From my perspective this seems strange to me because of the following:

An attitude indicator shows pitch information.
A turn and slip indicator shows: "no pitch information".

Therefore the usage of a Turn and slip indicator as a back-up for the attitude indicator is not logical from my (probably narrow) point-of-view.

My Questions:

Is it true that a Turn and slip indicator is a valid back-up for the attitude indicator?

To what extent is a turn and slip indicator a back-up for the attitude indicator?

Is it true that a Turn and slip indicator is a valid back-up for the attitude indicator?

Partially, but it would need to be used in conjunction with one or more other instruments if the Artificial Horizon is inoperable.

Change in the DI and/or compass will indicate a turn.
Change in altitude on an altimeter will indicate a climb or descent. Usefulness of the VSI is limited in this sense.

  To what extent is a turn and slip indicator a back-up for the attitude indicator?

With every one of the instruments on an aircraft there are backups. Sometimes this may be an entire second stack (eg Radio may have a complete second system, AoA sensors may be duplicated) other times you need to use a combination of more than one other instrument. In the case of a Turn/Slip indicator the latter is true. You  use a combination of DI, VSI, altimeter as described above to get a picture of your attitude when the Attitude Indicator itself is inoperable


What are the pros and cons of a straight wing plane? I need this asap for my folio... Much appreciated. I'm doing a research section on my folio and I need to know the pros and cons for a straight wing in general. Everywhere I've searched doesn't seem to have the question above and is making it very difficult.

I assume you mean unswept vs swept-back wings.

Pro:

Easy to manufacture
More efficient at low-subsonic speeds

Con:

Unstable at transsonic and supersonic speeds (see Mach tuck)

More details about wing sweep (including forward sweep) that should answer your question: Swept wing


What questions should I expect during an EASA skill test? I have my skill test in few days. I'm lost on what are the questions that will be asked during the oral part of the atpl skill test.

Goodness, the best not guess, since the amount of information an ATPL candidate must master is just massive. Could be anything from the smallest detail to broad concepts. Anything to make you uncomfortable and see if you are willing to admit that you might not yet know everything, or whether are you the kind of guy who takes the best guess and hopes it's the right one...

For your sake I hope all goes well, and for everybody elses, I hope you know everything needed to become a safe professional airline pilot. Godspeed.