Small planes tend to have keys, but not all.

The bigger the plane the less likely a key is needed and once you get into jets

, I can't think of any that need keys for engine starts.

The starting and securing of engines with no keys comes down to switches and knobs.

Likewise with exterior doors, on smaller planes including private end executive jets, you can find keyed exterior doors and luggage compartments.

With transport jets at airlines you won't find keys.

To secure those doors the jet bridge is pulled away from the airplane so there is no physical access to the boarding door.

As a private pilot, single-engine land, I've flown maybe fifty different light planes--none with any more than four seats or 210HP--and all of them have had ignition keys.

I haven't been in the cockpit of anything bigger.

Generally the keys have five positions: OFF, MAG 1, MAG 2, BOTH, and START.

You insert the key at the OFF position, turn it all the way to START and hold it there until the engine catches, and then release it back to BOTH.

MAG 1 and MAG 2 (sometimes LEFT and RIGHT) are for the runup check just before takeoff to make sure both your magnetos are working.

Usually the same key that fits in the ignition switch fits in the door lock.

It's pretty common for a small plane to have only one door that's unlockable from the outside: you lock all the other doors from the inside, then climb out and lock the last door.

One thing I've noticed, though, is that keys and locks for small planes don't appear to be serious

--at least, not the same level of serious that you see on cars and buildings.

They're more serious than briefcase keys or computer-case keys, but they look about as pickable as a cheap padlock...and while I've never looked, I wouldn't be surprised if you could reach under the edge of the instrument panel, pull wires with spade lugs off the back of the ignition switch, and touch them together yourself.

Private aircraft tend to be parked at airports with no effective security, and owned by individuals who expect to start and lock it like a car.

I've seen many, and they all had ignition keys.

Small aircraft (mainly single-engine) are also more-or-less interchangeable - if you can fly a Cessna you can fly a Beechcraft without any real issues so theft is a genuine concern.

Commercial aircraft are typically parked at large airports with 24-hour security, these days likely armed.

And they are not interchangeable.

Put a 747 captain with 20 years experience in Boeings into an Airbus 320 and he won't be able to find the light switch, never mind fly it away.

Besides ignition keys, small airplanes (single engine land) can be equipped with throttle locks.

These metal devices fit over the throttle lever or vernier control and are secured with either a key or a numeric code.

I've frequently seen this kind of lock on rental aircraft.

Here's an example :

C-160 TRANSALL has a door lock.

As a military cargo aircraft sometimes lands at remote airfields (or not even airfields), this is needed to "secure" the aircraft.

Heavy jet aircraft do not have keys.

You can enter the cockpit door which do not have locks, start up the APU - a small jet engine in the tail - to give you power and air.

Then start the main engines all of which just have toggle or push button switches.

It would be very easy to steal if you knew the systems.

As an aircraft mechanic for 40 years I feel there is a severe threat for this to happen.

I invented a small tool that would keep this from happening but no one is interested as of yet.

There is a pilot who attempted to steal a commerial aircraft on 7-17-2012.

I have contacted the TSA, FAA, Professional Pilots ass.

with my concerns and the answer to the issue.

I guess it will just have to happen before anyone listens!

I can only speak to types I have experience with, so: Light GA singles typically have ignition keys.

Light GA twins typically do not.

When you get to the heavy stuff, I have no idea. :-)

I think the answer is: it depends.

The Citabria has two toggle switches, one for each magneto, and a push button starter.

Pilots who have never started one may have trouble because the accepted practice is to put the stick in the crook of your right elbow to keep the elevator back and the tail wheel on the ground, and your right hand on the throttle, which is on the left wall.

After flicking on the mags with your left hand high on the right wall, you press the starter button with your left hand.

It requires some practice!

But I think it might confuse a Cessna driver, or at least make him nose over.

Here's a picture of the interior of the LSA version of the Citabria:

My Mooney has a fancy high-security lock.

But even if you have the key, the 270HP engine, turbocharger, and laminar flow wings, not to mention the constant speed prop, cowl flaps, and high V-speeds will prevent even a 777-typed ATP from having a successful solo first flight.

Some business jets like the Gulfstream for instance have a key to lock your passenger door from the outside, for instance if your aircraft is in night halt or you're gonna leave the aircraft parked for a day or so...

it's mainly for the security of the aircraft.

Most commercially used aircraft like Airbuses, have a CDSS (Cockpit Door Surveillance System), which allows the flight crew to see who is trying to access the cockpit door from the cabin.

Most of the time, a cockpit door with CDSS has a unique password to be entered on the touchpad of the cockpit door (at the entrance to the cockpit from the cabin) to get access to the flight crew compartment.

These passwords are normally known to the cabin crew and flight crews only.

Commercial aircraft normally do not have a door key to lock it from the outside as its security is monitored by airport security staff.

Question: One thing I've always wondered is: do airplanes have keys that you put in the ignition to start?  And on the outside doors? Otherwise how are they secured and started?  I'm interested to know about a broad range of aircraft; from GA, all the way to airliners.

Do planes have keys?

It appears that small planes have keys both for the ignition and for doors while large commercial airliners do not have any keys and are started with switches.

It depends. Small planes usually have keys, although this is not always the case. Often a small plane will have only one door that can be locked from the outside - all the others are locked from the inside. Small planes may also have throttle locks. Specific examples of planes with keys include the C-160 TRANSALL, Light GA singles, the Mooney. The Citabria has two toggle switches and a push button starter. If a plane has no keys, the engines are started and secured using switches and knobs. Large commercial aircraft do not have keys. Most have a cockpit door surveillance system, which the crew use to see who is attempting to access the cockpit. Private aircraft do not usually have effective security when parked at airports and their owners like to be able to lock them with a key. For some business jets, the passenger door can be locked from the outside.


Sometimes they do add temporary tanks.

Here's a picture of what Hawaiian Airlines had to do to get their fleet of 717's over the Pacific because they did not have the range.

I don't have the answer to your question specifically, but I would guess they either add temporary tanks and go from SBNT-GUCY which is not much further than max-range, or take the long haul through the US and Europe.

There's a Cranky Flier blog post about this.

First of all, yes, there are tricks to get the aircraft fly farther.

You can leave the payload out, this will allow you to fill all fuel tanks without reaching the maximum take-off mass.

Less mass means less induced drag, so you can fly higher and at a lower fuel flow.

It will also allow you to install temporary tanks to carry even more fuel than the aircraft was designed for.

That is how small GA aircraft get transferred from the US to Europe.

This is a typical payload-range diagram with the three distinct points: Maximum payload, maximum fuel and transfer range with no payload.

The slope between maximum payload and maximum fuel points shows how well the additional mass of fuel is converted into range (mostly due to engine efficiency), and the slope of the lower segment between maximum fuel and no payload shows how much the weight reduction increases range (due to induced drag reduction).

In jets and turboprops, you can use higher-density fuel (PDF) which gives you more energy per volume in order to get a few more percent of range.

And if all fails, you can disassemble the aircraft and ship or fly the parts over.

If the range is not sufficient, the plane will be small enough and will be designed for easy dis- and reassembly.

Short Belfast being loaded with JetRanger (own work)

I flew in a brand spanking new Airbus A320 on its maiden voyage from Toulouse, France to New York about 13 years ago.

We had to stop in Iceland and Newfoundland for fuel before heading to New York.

At Oshkosh every year (EAA Airventure)

I hear about pilots crossing from Africa (the furthest western point) to the furthest eastern point of Brazil in a single engine small plane.

So I'm betting the jet

can easily make that crossing.

They do have to put down at the first airport to get fuel.

That flight is not one I'd care to do...

An Australian company I used to work for purchased a Jetstream 41 turboprop off an American seller.

With a range of only about 1400 kilometres, there was no chance of safely making it across the Pacific.

So the ferry flight went through Canada, Alaska, Russia, right down through south Asia to northen Australia.

So the answer is, when they can't extend the range far enough, they'll go the long way!!

I was chatting to one of the Pilots of Maldivian Air Taxi a number of years ago, who fly Canadian built Twin Otter's.

He remarked that one of the more interesting jobs for that carrier was the "Overhaul flights".

A few pilots spend almost all year ferrying their aircraft back and forth to Canada.

I don't remember the exact route but it involved lots and lots of stop-offs for fuel.

Question: Today I flew on an Embraer 190 of Kenya Airways. Checking in the tech specs this aircraft has a range of roughly 2900 km. Considering it is built in Brasil, I was wondering how do they deliver it to Africa since they would have to cross the Atlantic Ocean which I suppose is more than 2900 kms of range it has available.  Do they add temporary tanks and, of course, by flying the aircraft empty get more range out of it?

How do airliners get from the factory to the client if the aircraft does not have the required range?

There are a number of ways of getting an aircraft to a client beyond its normal range. Sometimes, temporary tanks are added. Higher density fuel can be used. When empty an aircraft can fly beyond its normal range. Alternatively, it can take a route where it can stop to refuel. Finally, it can be disassembled for transporting.

There are things that can be done to extend the distance the aircraft can fly. Temporary tanks are sometimes added. Or they may take the SBNT-GUCY route, as this is not much further than the maximum range, or fly long haul through the US and Europe. The payload can be left out. This means that all the fuel tanks can be filled without reaching maximum take-off mass. Higher-density fuel can also be used in jets and turboprops. This results in more energy per volume to increase the range a little. If nothing else works, the aircraft can be taken apart and the individual parts tranported by sea or air.


Depends on what you mean.

Get to high altitude?

Yes you can.

It is really inefficient to get there, but some aircraft already do it.

Achieve a stable orbit and be able to maintain control?

No, at those altitudes you do not have enough oxygen to keep your engines running, you have to bring your own (and thus use a rocket) For the sake of clarity, some definitions: reaction engine : includes both rockets and jets.

The engine pushes some mass in one direction and by reaction it achieves thrust in the opposite one. jet (engine): is used to refer to airbreathing engines.

The aircraft carries the fuel, but not the oxidizer; that is taken from the surrounding atmosphere.

rocket (engine): is used to refer to non-airbreathing engines.

The (space)craft carries both the fuel and the oxidizer.

No atmosphere is needed.

space :

above 100km of altitude.

go to space : staying in space :

Images from xkcd

For certain values of "go to space", yes.

The Karman line (the altitude at which an airplane cannot generate enough lift to stay aloft at any speed slower than orbital velocity) is usually considered the lower edge of outer space.

This implies that with a powerful engine and enough fuel it's possible to "fly" up into space: you just keep gaining altitude and speed until you find yourself in orbit.

No aircraft has actually done this.

The X-15 and SpaceShipOne were both able to reach that altitude in zoom climbs; neither went fast enough to stay there.

It depends what you include in "non-rocket aircraft".

Wikipedia has a whole article on " Non-rocket spacelaunch " which discusses the various options.

The short version is, there are no current space launch systems which do not use rockets.

The most practical one we know

of appears to be space guns , which have been successfully used for sub-orbital launches

(but are not practical for human spaceflight).

A jet engine can only accept air at around half the speed of sound.

If the plane is flying faster, the inlet system needs to slow the air down before accelerating it again.

Hence the higher the speed, the less thrust it can provide.

It is not like a rocket engine that always pulls with comparable force.

A plane needs to accelerate to Mach 25 or about to fly into orbit as a spacecraft, and this is only possible with a new type of engine.

Scramjet that is a jet engine, not a rocket, could probably do this.

However this engine seems still under development and currently a rocket is required to accelerate to the speed under that this engine can even be started.

I'm not sure how you'd classify the proposed Skylon spacecraft spacecraft.

It would be an airbreathing reactive engine in lower altitudes but a rocket above 26 km.

It might be a game changer.

But this time I don't give even odds that Skylon will come to pass.

I recall hearing about F-15s making ballistic suborbital flights, by simply getting up enough of a head of steam to coast through near-space.

I don't think they actually went into "space" (100 km altitude) and they certainly didn't make orbit.

Does anyone else recall the specifics on this?

I can find some references online to using F-15s to test launch ASAT missiles, but my recollection was that the whole aircraft actually went high enough to get well above maximum cruising altitude.

No aircraft powered by engines which rely on atmospheric oxygen can operate outside of Earths atmosphere, 100,000 ft is approximately the altitude limit for air breathing aircraft using conventional fuels, higher sustained altitudes might be possible using liquid hydrogen, but the utility of very high speed and altitude performance as a means of avoiding interception is questionable today.

No air breathing aircraft is likely to outrun a rocket propelled Surface to Air Missile however apparently impressive it's performance statistics.

Question: I always wondered if it was possible for planes and other aircraft to leave the Earth's atmosphere. Normal commercial transport airplanes can fly pretty high, but then they need air to get the speed boost from. Reactive engines seem like a better idea, but I don't know how much importance air has for them.  Is it possible to get to space from Earth's surface using a non-rocket aircraft?

Can aircraft other than rockets go to space?

It is not currently possible to get into space using an aircraft. 100,000 feet is the altitude limit for engines relying on atmospheric oxygen.

At present, there are no space launch systems that do not use rockets. A plane needs to reach speeds of around Mach 25 to fly into orbit. This is only possible with a new type of engine. There have been reports of F-15s making ballistic suborbital flights simply by picking up enough speed to coast through near-space. There are online references to F-15s being used to test-launch ASAT missiles. However, according to the respondent's recollection, the entire aircraft actually rose high enough to exceed maximum cruising altitude. Aircraft powered by engines that are reliant on atmospheric oxygen cannot function outside of the Earth's atmosphere. The altitude limit for air-breathing aircraft that use conventional fuel is around 100,000 ft. It might be possible for higher altitudes to be reached for prolonged periods using liquid hydrogen, but it is questionable how useful very high speed and altitude performance as a means of avoiding interception is nowadays.


Several of the answers here seem to suggest that this only happens in first or business class.

While that was historically true, it's not so true anymore.

Airlines such as Cathay Pacific and Korean Air , for instance, have them at every seat in most (or all?)

of their long-haul aircraft.

Delta also has it in parts of economy on several of their long-haul configurations as well as in all of economy on their recently-acquired 717s and 737-900ERs

You can check with your specific airline or with sites like Seat Guru before booking to determine what is available on any given aircraft and at which seats.

As Lnafziger said, some airlines' systems require adapters, while others don't.

At least from personal experience, it seems that most of the recent ones do not.

On Korean Air, Cathay, and Delta, the plugs are designed to be able to fit any of the standard power plug types (e.g. North American, European, Asian, etc.)

Since most new electronic devices use auto-switching power supplies, they should accept the 110V/60Hz supplied by most of these systems, even if they're designed for 220V/50Hz markets.

Here's a picture of one of the outlets in economy on the Delta 717s.

Notice that the holes are cut such that any of the standard plug types will fit in it.

The slot on the bottom is a USB power port.

This depends on the airline, but to answer your question: Yes, some airlines do have electrical outlets in the cabin.

It seems that since the FAA relaxed the rules on portable devices that the airlines are seeing the need to add them to more of their fleet.

For example: US Airways has a Business Tools webpage which tells which of their aircraft have outlets.

There are some in both coach and first class.

United has an Inflight connectivity and power webpage whichs shows that a lot of their fleet has electrical outlets and more are coming.

There are different types of outlets, and some of them require an adapter to use while others don't.

Some EMB-145 models have a 120v AC outlet mounted in the cabin just below the cockpit door.

This was powered by an inverter

(EMB-145 is 100% DC busses).

It wasn't for passenger use (primarily for cleaning crews)

and I didn't trust the power coming out of it enough to plug in a laptop, though we sometimes did charge our phones with it.

Some larger airplanes have 120v AC in the cabin mounted at a subset of seats.

I can't recall which airlines, but I have been in a 757 and a corporate CRJ-700

that had this kind of power installed.

To answer your question of "why don't you see them," I think it comes down to power requirements.

As mentioned, new-ish first/business class generally will have outlets available.

You can explore different aircraft here .

The reason it's not available in every seat is capacity.

If you have 150 people pulling 75W, that's 11.25 kW.

On a 737 NG, each of the two generators is rated at 90KVA.

However, they need most of that power to run the radio equipment, avionics, lights, galleys, window heat, entertainment system, and everything else on the plane that runs on electrical power.

So besides a possible upgrade of the generators/power system, this also adds the weight of running cables and having outlets at every seat.

It's a lot easier to do that sort of thing on a train car, where it doesn't have to fly and can get power from the locomotive.

You can find more about the 737 electric system here .

They are universally available since maybe 10 to 15 years, but only in Business and First, and normally would accept both US and European plugs.

In Economy you are out of luck, but if you consider that most airlines have reduced Economy seating pitch to the minimum 31", laptop use is near impossible there, anyway.

I have seen one instance a few years ago on an older 747 where they had a proprietary socket and would hand out adapters for the different laptops.

Naturally, the adapter kit was of the same age and unusable on some modern laptops.

Power Sockets are getting pretty common these days.

Most of the Widebodies (specially 777 and 380's have power outlets for 2 out of 3 Seats in each row).

The Power Ratings also are 110V 60Hz commonly.

Question: As we see trains nowadays with sockets for you to plug your laptop into, as well as Wi-Fi on-board both trains and planes, I'm wondering why you don't see electrical outlets on planes?  Do any airlines have sockets in the cabin? How about in first class?

Do commercial aircraft have electrical outlets?

Wide-bodied planes such as 777 and 380 have power outlets for most seats. Other planes, it seems, tend to have them only in first/business class. As the rules on using electronic devices has been relaxed, more airlines are seeing the need for power outlets. You can check for this information with the airline or on sites like Seat Guru.

It depends on the airline, but some do now have electrical outlets. They have been available for around 10 to 15 years but only in business and first class. Specific airlines or websites such as Seat Guru should be able to tell you which seats have electrical outlets. United has an in-flight connectivity and power webpage. This shows that many of its planes now have outlets and there are plans for more to be added. The presence of electrical outlets in planes is increasing and they are now fairly common. This may be due in part to the FAA relaxing its rules on portable devices. Some larger airplanes, including the EMB-145, have a 120v AC outlet in the cabin. If a plane does not have them, it is usually a question of power requirements. There are not usually outlets in Economy, but it is very difficult to use a laptop in Economy in any case due to the reduced seating pitch. One of the respondents recalls seeing a proprietary socket on an older 747 that would be handed out with adapters for use with different laptops. Most wide-body aircraft have outlets for two of every three seats in a row.

Electrical outlets have been available for around 10 to 15 years but only in business and first class.


CASA (Australia's aviation authorities) has a report on an airprox between a crop duster and a surveying mini-drone: ATSB incident report

There are two instances I remember hearing about.

This one happened to a plane landing at JFK, and the FBI was seeking information about it.

They reported seeing a small black "drone aircraft" with four propellers.

I don't think they every found anything more.

And just recently , two planes landing at YVR saw an RC helicopter, one plane coming very close to it.

The RCMP was investigating, but again it's not certain whether they will come up with anything about it.

There is also an investigation into a video taken from a quadrotor showing a plane landing at YVR.

And if you thought that was close, check out this video from Australia.

It september 2017, a DJI Phantom collided with an US Black Hawk helicopter causing a real damage to main rotor.

Obviously a military helicopter cannot be destroied by a small uav (why develop expensive Sparrow or Maverick rockets when a simple Phantom could land a military object ;-) )

but... surely it would be a true danger...

This one in Tallahassee with a regional jet got a lot of attention when it happened but there are many more.

The FAA keeps a database, and I expect we'll see about an actual collision with a Part 121 aircraft soon enough as the number of airborne UAVs is increasing rapidly.

February 2018 - What is thought to be

the first drone collision in the US occurred in February 2018.

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating a helicopter crash landing in South Carolina that may have been caused by a civilian drone, according to a report from Bloomberg .

Question: Small civilian mini-drones such as the DJI Phantom or professional surveying drones are becoming increasingly widespread, raising concerns about the potential collision/airprox with manned aircraft (especially GA where flight altitude is typically relatively low).   Have there been actual cases of collision and/or dangerous airprox reported so far? What were the consequences?

Have there been any cases of collision/airprox of small drones with manned aircraft?

There have been some collisions/airprox incidents involving drones. Cases of airprox have been reported in Australia and airprox and collisions have been reported in the US.

There have been cases of collision/airprox with drones. CASA, the Australian aviation authority, has filed a report relating to an airprox between a crop duster and a surveying mini-drone. There was also an incident at YVR involving two planes and an RC helicopter, which came very close to one of the planes. There is also an investigation being carried out on a  video  taken from a quadrotor, which shows a plane landing at YVR. Other incidents include a  DJI Phantom colliding with a US Black Hawk  helicopter in September 2017 and a helicopter crash landing in South Carolina, which may have been caused by a civilian drone and which is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board.


It is important to remember that it is often difficult to diagnose radio malfunction during flight.

Therefore it is hard to know whether you have a malfunctioning transmitter, a malfunctioning receiver, or perhaps both.

You also have the point-of-failure that is the headset you are using.

For this reason it is quite usual to carry a spare headset and the first piece of diagnostics is to swap headsets.

Many General aviation aircraft also have a handheld microphone and speakers integrated into the radio stack.

Once you've ascertained that its the actual transmitter and/or receiver that has failed it is common to set the transponder to 7600.

For landing, the relevant detail for the procedure to follow is contained within Chapter 4, Section 2-13 of the AIM : Receiver Inoperative Remain outside class D airspace until the direction of air traffic can be ascertained Notify the tower

your type, position, altitude, intention to land and request

you are controlled with light signals At 3 -5 miles, advise the tower of your position and join the traffic pattern Watch

the tower for light signals Continue to advise of position (downwind, turning base, etc)

Transmitter inoperative Remain outside class D airspace until the direction of air traffic can be ascertained

Monitor the primary local control frequency as depicted on sectional charts for landing or traffic info.

Look out for light signals that may be directed to your aircraft During hours of daylight, acknowledge tower transmissions or light signals by rocking your wings At night, acknowledge by blinking landing of navigation lights Transmitter & Receiver inoperative

Remain outside class D airspace until the direction of air traffic can be ascertained Maintain visual contact with the tower and acknowledge light signals as above.

The light signals used for an aircraft in flight are as follows source : Steady green - Cleared to land Flashing

green - Cleared to approach airport, or return to land Steady red - Continue circling, give way to other aircraft Flashing red - Airport unsafe, do not land Alternating red and green - Exercise extreme caution

They can be seen in this video .

First thing you do when the radio breaks down is to start squawking 7600

(the code for radio malfunction) on your transponder.

Then when you approach the airport they will attempt to contact you first through radio (to see if you can still hear them) and you use alternate means of replying (sending IDENT on transponder, rocking your wings,...).

If you can't hear them they will use a light gun to convey messages.

Ratchet Freak has a good answer.

In addition, please pull out your cellphone and try calling the tower .

Somewhere in the bottom of my flight bag I have a small book with telephone numbers at towers.

If you don't have that, call Lock-Mart Flight Service at 1-800-wx-brief

tell him you need the tower number.

Also remember that there is no requirement for a radio in an airplane.

NORDO (No Radio)

aircraft are perfectly legal although in practice, they operate mostly out of non-towered fields.

Operating out of a towered airport is still possible, but it requires prior coordination with the tower.

Note

please that flight in the SFRA around Washington DC does require a radio, and I have seen no procedures to allow for NORDO aircraft in this area.

If your radio stops working, one option is to fly to a non-towered field and do what the NORDO planes do:

Overfly the field at a safe altitude, note wind direction from the wind sock or tetrahedron, note other traffic in the area, and fit yourself into the traffic pattern... and land.

I was a Junior Technician, later Corporal, Air Wireless Fitter in the R.A.F. in 1952-4, servicing Gloster Meteors' radios at a Flying Training School, and the signal then was for the pilot to waggle the aircraft's wings as he approached, or flew by, on his way to land, to show he could not contact the Control Tower.

Then we had to fix it.

I was made a Corporal so that I could sign off our work on the aircraft out on the airfield, usually just tuning up to a new crystal to suit the frequencies of a distant Station.

I got the promotion so the Sergeant could stay in the nice warm office

: I didn't mind -- I was "/Paid

" extra, nice for a "National Service

Only" erk.

Happy days

The NORDO procedures are covered extensively in the AIM.

That is suggested reading for any pilot.

Cellphones are unlikely to work airborne, except close to the ground, and then in remote areas.

Most cell systems will ignore a phone which brings up many towers, thereby preventing it from calling.

Text might work better.

Most pilots don't frequently call towers, but it is worth noting that many times the tower will not answer the phone, depending upon workload.

Calling FSS might work better, and they have more direct access to the tower through multiple means.

Many pilots carry a small transceiver, which is a good backup device.

I use mine to get ATIS and Clearance prior to engine start.

At least that way

I know it is frequently working.

A final point, if you do loose transmit capability, listen on the last frequency you were talking on.

They will probably try to contact you, and you may likely get walked through communications changes until you are on the ground, listening only.

That has happened to me.

The radios lost transmit capability due to a failure in the audio panel.

Center handed me to approach, who vectored me to the ILS, and gave me a frequency change to the tower.

Tower gave me taxi instructions.

There was no need to transmit.

No need to use a cellphone or anything else, and no need to dig out a backup radio.

But the starting point for understanding the procedures is to visit the AIM.

Question: Is there a special protocol for a situation where the on-board radio communication equipment suddenly breaks down? Would the pilot be able to land on a busy towered airfield or would they be forced to look for a small landing strip in the middle of nowhere?

How would an airplane land if the on-board radio breaks down?

If the transmitter has failed, it is usual to set the transponder to 7600. NORDO procedures for landing without communication are covered extensively in AIM. The aircraft should remain outside class D airspace until the direction of air traffic has been ascertained and local control frequency should be monitored. Some pilots carry a small transceiver as a backup device.

Once you know that it is the transmitter and/or receiver that is not working, you would normally set the transponder to 7600. If the transmitter is not working: stay outside class D airspace until it is possible to identify the direction of traffic.  Monitor the primary local control frequency as shown on the sectional charts. The procedure used to be for the pilot to waggle the aircraft's wings as he flew by or approached. This would show the control tower that he was unable to contact them. There is extensive coverage of the NORDO procedures in the AIM. Cellphones are unlikely to work while you are in the air unless you are close to the ground in a remote location. Most pilots do not often make calls to towers but you should bear in mind that the phone will often go unanswered at the tower depending on how much work they have to do. Many pilots have a small transceiver, which is a good backup device.


As far as I'm aware this has never been attempted (and I doubt the Navy would let me try - though I'm certainly game if they are!), but: A Piper J3 Cub stalls at 38mph (33kts).

The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) had a maximum speed of 38.7mph (33.6kts).

So, given a lightly loaded cub and an Enterprise -class carrier at flank speed, it is at least theoretically possible to float that aircraft off the deck (if it were lightly loaded, and thus had a lower stall speed).

Achieving zero relative motion would require a little more effort - specifically you'd have to seek out a headwind, and the Cub would have to be operating at an airspeed above stall, but still pretty close to it.

For example, if the Enterprise were making 30 knots and steaming into a 10 knot headwind the relative wind on deck would be 40 knots.

That's enough to lift the Cub, but as soon as it was in the air it would need to pull itself along (via its engine) to maintain that speed.

The Cub would have zero relative motion above the deck at an airspeed somewhere around 40 knots).

As a (slightly ridiculous) bonus:

The Belite Superlite has a stall speed of 28 mph (25kts).

It would be theoretically possible to fly such a plane like a kite from an aircraft carrier.

Its advertised takeoff and landing distances (both ~500ft) are also such that it could operate from a carrier deck without need for the catapult to launch or arresting wire to stop.

A Cessna 150 can take off at 48 knots rotation speed.

An aircraft carrier can do 30 knots, and an 18 knot headwind is certainly possible at sea.

That puts a 48 knot wind over the wings, enough for the Cessna to take off.

The engine would counteract drag, allowing the plane to "float" off the deck.

If you have any doubt about this being possible, just watch what happens if you don't tie down your plane properly.

What you say is not only possible, but it has been used to land a plane on a much smaller (and a bit faster) ship than an aircraft carrier.

Try to search in the web for the video

"Extreme small plane landing on a ship at sea".

Here is a working link at the moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdzVnZBaoY

It all depends on the minimum flight speed and the ship's maximum speed.

Even with the slow speed of submarines, floating a flying machine is possible if the machine has been designed that way.

In order to increase the observation radius of submarines (typically only 5nm), an unpowered gyrocopter was designed in 1941 to lift an observer 500 ft up into the air to increase the observation radius to 25 nm.

Gyrocopters are known for their low flying speeds, and this one, the Focke-Achgelis 330 , was designed to be folded away in a watertight container and to be stored on the deck of the submarine.

It could be assembled and de-assembled within 20 minutes and was then towed behind the submarine like a kite.

The minimum flight speed was only 27 km/h (14.5 its), just enough for a submarine going at full speed and a little wind.

The forward speed of a carrier might not be the listed max speed, if heading into a strong headwind.

However, if the relative wind is great enough, the aircraft wings would create more lift than the weight of the plane.

There are of course issues like structure induced turbulence which might adversely impact handling.

And if near equilibrium, the aircraft may never fly beyond the bow.

If planning on this type of operation, would look for a Vx (adjected for engine off or idle) relative wind to allow a reasonable climb (if you call the ascent that) to clear the structure.

Also, I would plan on factoring in the ground effect of working off the carrier deck, and then having that effect reduced as altitude was gained.

Finally, from practical experience, I would expect the aircraft to become airborne prior to the stall speed, due to ground effect, probably a lighter that gross weight loading, and lots of other factors.

Question: Would it be possible to float a small plane (say a  Cessna 150 ) off of the deck of an aircraft carrier without the Cessna achieving any forward motion with respect to the aircraft carrier? If not a Cessna 150, is there a standard GA aircraft that could do it?  EDIT:  Per a comment from ratchet freak: the takeoff would be done via lift from the wings, not via an engine duct (VTOL), like a  Harrier .

Can a small plane be floated off of an aircraft carrier?

It is possible to float a small plane off an aircraft carrier. It has been done to land a plane on a smaller faster ship. Success depends on the minimum flight speed and the ship's maximum speed.

Not only is this action possible, it has already been used to land a plane on a ship that is much smaller and a little faster than an aircraft carrier. Whether or not it is possible in the individual circumstances depends on the minimum flight speed of the plane and the maximum speed of the ship. As a specific example, an unpowered gyrocopter was designed in 1941 in order to lift an observer into the air to increase the observation radius of submarines.

Whether or not it is possible depends on the minimum flight speed of the plane and the maximum speed of the ship.

In 1941, an unpowered gyrocopter was designed in order to lift an observer into the air to increase the observation radius of submarines.


I've talked to a couple of aerodynamicists, and for small aircraft when you run the numbers the improvement offered by winglets is often less than the drag penalty caused by their weight (which also reduces allowable payload).

For larger aircraft that fly long distances, the proportion of the aircraft's weight that is due to the winglets is much smaller than it is for small aircraft, so they don't have this problem and that makes winglets a viable strategy.

As others have pointed out winglets don't make much aerodynamic sense for small aircraft.

The point of a winglet is basically to deflect the wingtip vortex away from the lift-producing part of the wing, granting an increase in effective wing span without the added form drag of actually making the wing longer.

The winglet itself creates some form drag though, and it adds weight.

On most small aircraft the potential improvement in wing efficiency doesn't exceed the weight and form drag that result from adding the winglet.

What you will find on many small aircraft are Hoerner-style wingtips (either installed at the factory or added later through an STC modification).

At lower speeds these have aerodynamic benefits similar to winglets, but without the additional form drag, and usually little or no added weight.

First, winglets look fancy but will not help that much in drag reduction.

They were pushed less by engineers than by marketing , Boeing's in particular.

They help a litte in ideal conditions, but in sideslip or at high speed they can quickly increase drag.

Then, most small aircraft are designs from a pre-winglet era.

Adding them means to invalidate the type certificate, unless someone takes the initiative to re-certify the aircraft with winglets.

I guess nobody has seen this as a profitable endeavor so far.

Gliders benefit from winglets because in competitions they are grouped in classes.

Membership of some classes is defined by wingspan.

Gliders get better with increasing wingspan, so if regulations limit the lateral extension, the way out is to extend the wings upwards.

If there is no such artificial limit, it will in most cases be better to expand the wing in spanwise direction .

Many small aircraft designs are rather old and winglets were not common on airliners either when they were certified.

For airliners that fly 8 or more hours a day saving a few percent on fuel quickly pays off the additional development and certification, so winglets were adopted quickly there.

But typical general aviation aircraft does not fly anywhere close to that and the few that fly more and would be worth upgrading (and their owners have money for upgrade) are not enough to make the design and manufacture profitable.

Note, that winglets did find their way to gliders, especially competition ones, as the little benefit is more noticeable there.

They also do appear on some newer designs, most notably the Diamond ones ( DA20 , DA40 , DA42 ).

The situation is very similar to why we don't see more aircraft diesel engines.

They are more efficient, use cheaper fuel and are somewhat cheaper to maintain, but the certification is so complicated that there are only few modifications available.

Also most GA aircraft are not really very efficient to begin with.

The DA20-A1 claims glide ratio 14:1

and that is way better than most competitors.

Compare with airliners where 18:1 is nothing special (was claimed by A320 some 30 years ago).

So winglets are not going to help as much.

One possible explanation is that large amounts of sweep and higher indicated airspeed are less common in "smaller" GA aircraft.

Larger and faster aircraft with large amounts of sweep literally plow the air aside, resulting in a significant spanwise airflow at the wingtips.

Winglets are touted for reducing the strength of wing tip vortices, and are said to generate some forward force from the wingtip vortex, but they also may improve efficiency simply by bouncing the span wise flow aft, which would generate a small amount of thrust.

The winglet "fence" may also allow a slightly lower AOA for the same amount of lift by helping maintain pressure differential all the way to the wingtip.

Lower AOA means less drag.

An earlier form of winglets, wing tip fuel tanks, also served as a wing tip fence in addition to acting as a wingtip weight roll damper and spanwise weight distributor.

Many smaller, slower planes do not benefit enough from winglets to justify the additional cost and weight.

However, they may be seen on STOL aircraft to help trap a bit more air under the wings for high AOA slow flight, along with slats and flaps; and more competitive gliders, where a slight advantage is meaningful.

My general understanding is that winglets are most beneficial for aircraft that spend a lot of time in a rather narrow window of possible angles-of-attack-- e.g. an airliner in long-range cruising flight.

Small aircraft tend not to fit this profile, unless they are flown by really boring pilots.

Question: I've noticed that winglets are very rare on small aircraft. I wonder why this is the case. Wouldn't they have the same advantages, especially because they travel at low speed? Or is it just a wrong impression I got and they aren't that rare?

Why is it rare for small aircraft to have winglets?

Winglets do not make much sense on small aircraft and the small benefit does not justify the extra cost. Moreover, most small aircraft design dates from the pre-winglet era. Gliders do benefit from winglets. Winglets do look fancy but will not help much with drag reduction.

Most small aircraft do not get enough benefit from winglets to justify their use, given the additional cost and weight. They do not make much aerodynamic sense for small aircraft, as the improvement they offer is often less than the drag penalty that their weight causes. In addition, most small aircraft were designed before winglets were commonly used. Many smaller aircraft have Hoerner-style wingtips instead. Winglets could also be rare on small aircraft because large amounts of sweep and a higher indicated airspeed are not as common in small aircraft. By contrast, winglets are much more cost-effective for larger aircraft. Winglets were incorporated rapidly on aircraft that fly for eight or more hours a day, as the fuel saving more than offsets the additional development and certification costs.

Most small aircraft do not get enough benefit from winglets to justify their use, given the additional cost and weight. They do not make much aerodynamic sense for small aircraft, as the improvement they offer is often less than the drag penalty that their weight causes. Winglets are much more cost-effective for larger aircraft.

Although winglets may look good, they do not offer a significant improvement in drag reduction.

Most small aircraft were designed before winglets were commonly used.

Gliders do tend to have winglets because they are grouped in classes for competitions and because the benefit of winglets is more noticeable in gliders.

Winglets could be rare on small aircraft because large amounts of sweep and a higher indicated airspeed are not as common in small aircraft.


Radio was not widely used until the 1930s, before that, mostly light signals were used.

Early ground support aircraft in WW I could drop little notes which were pencilled by the observer, stuffed in a small capsule to which a streamer was fitted, and that was dropped as closely as possible to the troops which should get that message.

This method was still used in WW II, when most aircraft had radio, because only specially equipped ground troops had compatible receivers.

The first regular flights by night were 1921 for the air mail connection between Omaha and Chicago, and electric flood lights were positioned along the flight path.

When Lufthansa opened the first night connection between the Reich and East Prussia in 1926, they posted burning oil drums along the way to mark where the pilot had to fly.

Communication the other way (air to ground) was not possible on those flights.

The first air-to-ground radio communication used morse signals, and this is the origin for these strange three-letter names for things like local air pressure at the ground (QFE) or pressure corrected to sea level conditions (QNH).

There was a whole lot more of those, including some to order coffee before landing, but they are no longer necessary.

Read all about it here .

While radio was available (meaning it existed) it did not exist in a form usable by early aircraft.

If you are talking early-early travel, not commercial travel, communication was not necessary.

Navigate to the destination, circle the (farmer's) field to check for livestock, then land.

Communication with other aircraft was not necessary as there usually were no other aircraft.

As things progressed, morse code became practical.

This was when cockpit crews required both hands to count.

Up until World War One, there was no radio communication between air and ground, or between planes.

Communication from ground to air was done by means of light signals.

From 1915 onwards aircraft were used as artillery spotters which involved Morse code wireless signals one-way , (from the aircraft to the ground).

There was no communication from ground to air, and the air-to-ground communication was limited to simple codes.

The only form of air-to-air communications was signals such as 'wing-waggling'.

Air-to-ground and air-to-air spoken radio communication became common between the wars, and was widespread in major air forces at the start of it.

Military aircraft frequently used radiotelegraphy (Morse code)

well into WWII, if not 'til the end.

The binary nature of it (on/off constant amplitude signal*) gave greater effective range and more resistance to degradation by static than radiotelephony (voice).

Most aircraft had voice radios for communication with nearby friendly aircraft and bases, but relied on Morse code at long ranges.

* shades of digital transmissions today!

In World War 1 there were aircraft spark gap transmitters and the pilot could send messages in Morse code to receivers on the ground but he could not receive wireless (now called radio) signals.

There was limited communication from ground to aircraft using the following three methods;Ground Strips.

Lamp Signals.

Poppet Panels.

The pilot had to fly and watch for signals at the same time.

Ground strips were white sheets 3 metres by 300 mm (10 feet by 1 foot) or larger.

They were laid out as patterns or letters with a letter for such messages as 'Your (wireless) signal is weak' or, 'Repeat last (wireless) message' or 'I am not receiving your signal'.

Lamp signals, used later in WW1, used 'Lucas' signalling lamps.

The operator aimed the light beam at the pilot when he thought it would be visible to him and send the message in Morse Code.

The Poppet Panel was a canvas shutter arrangement fixed to the ground and was worked by pulling a cord which made a white patch visible from the air.

When the cord was released the panel showed a black patch.

By pulling and releasing the cord the operator could send Morse Code messages to the pilot who had to fly with one hand, look over the side and write down the letters with his other hand.

It was a difficult task.

Question: During the initial era of air travel how do the pilots/Navigation officers would communicate with ground stations?  Do they use radio communication? Or Telegraph was used?

How did aircraft communicate during early air travel?

Radio was not widely used in aircraft communication until the 1930s, before that, mostly light signals were used. Communication from ground to air was done by means of light signals.  The first air-to-ground radio communication used morse signals, and this is the origin for these strange three-letter names for things like local air pressure at the ground (QFE) or pressure corrected to sea level conditions (QNH). When Lufthansa opened the first night connection between the Reich and East Prussia in 1926, they posted burning oil drums along the way to mark where the pilot had to fly.

Before radio was available, lights were often used to communicate. Electric flood lights were used on the flight path for the first regular night flights between Omaha and Chicago in 1921 and in 1926, Lufthansa positioned burning oil drums along the flight path for flights between the Reich and East Prussia. Other forms of communication included "wing-waggling" and notes stuffed into a capsule and dropped close to troops during World War I. As technology developed, morse code was increasingly used by military aircraft. This was primarily for air-to-ground communication but radio signals could not be received by the aircraft. Although radio did exist, it was not widely used until the 1930s when air-to-ground and air-to-air radio communication became common.


Fighter jets escorting planes after various sorts of emergencies seems to be standard procedure in many countries, you hear about it quite frequently.

It's sometimes implied in the media that if the situation would turn into a 9/11-type hijacking it might be necessary to shoot the plane down but nobody seems willing to fully clarify who could take such a decision and under what conditions on the record.

Now, in most cases, there isn't even a suggestion that a hijacking is happening

but it's difficult to determine that in a timely manner

and there are still two things fighters can do in other cases: Get a visual confirmation of the situation aboard the plane

(Is the plane damaged?

The cockpit windows obscured?

Who is in the cockpit?)

“Guide” a pilot who has lost communication to an airport.

Also, one factor is that being able to scramble jets is often seen as a basic requirement to assert sovereignty (witness the mini-controversy in Switzerland when it was revealed that the air force could not do it at certain times of the day)

so politically it seems difficult to entirely give up on it, even if it could be argued that it's a waste of money for smaller countries to maintain an air force that does very little beside this type of missions.

Especially post-911

it became paramount to ensure that such aircraft form no threat to cities and other places where crashing an aircraft into them would cause serious damage.

Blowing it out of the sky, however bad it would be for the passengers (not to mention the psychological impact on the fighter crews and their controllers) would be preferable to having thousands of victims on the ground (and a major PR coup for some terrorist group).

So jet fighters are scrambled to escort the aircraft until it's on the ground somewhere or the threat otherwise neutralised (say the attempted hijacking foiled by people on board).

This is little different from fighters being scrambled to escort intruders into a nation's airspace (and in extreme cases shoot them down) which has been done since the end of WW2 and maybe sporadically before (without radar to detect intruders and guide interceptors

it's a lot harder to do so obviously, and prior to WW2

that wasn't available).

In this specific case it may have been overreaction to a madman with a fake bomb, but not knowing whether the threat was real or not it's easier to send up the fighters and later recall them than to have to explain to congress and even worse the press why you didn't act after the jetliner crashes into some city center during lunch hour...

Be happy that they have the option to send up fighters and don't have to rely on guided missiles alone, as there's no recalling those once launched...

In addition to @Relaxed's answer, one additional reason would be if the hijacker gets control of the cockpit and turns off the transponder.

ATC works on secondary radar with a signal bounced back from the plane in order for ATC to track the aircraft.

If the transponder is turned off, it would be very difficult for ATC to track the exact whereabouts of the plane.

By having escort planes, they could maintain positioning of the endangered aircraft.

If absolutely necessary the plane can be prevented from making a mess of a major city, but it is basically a rather obvious visible sign to anyone misbehaving in the plane that they are in very, very deep trouble.

Given the threat of "I have a bomb and I will blow up Canada" the cabin crew are clearly overreacting.

Highly unlikely a bomb big enough to take out Canada would go unnoticed, esp.

as the plane would be grossly overweight with it.

The utility of sending fighter jets is to destroy the plane before an hypothetical attempt.

It's unfortunate, but the point is to kill a few people to save many.

This can also possibly have the impact of scaring the hijacker/terrorist.

In the mean time, someone in the ATC can attempt to negotiate with the terrorist before any shoot-downs are needed.

In France, we send two fighter jets, because one jet is there to make contact with the pilot (seated on the left of the cockpit) while the other fighter stays behind the aircraft ready fire if needed.

The only person allowed to make the decision to fire, is the Prime Minister.

In fact, fighter jets take off on these missions quite often, but it's usually only for providing assistance (e.g. providing landing clearance to an aircraft with dead radio).

In addition to the reasons above (911-ish & transponder out), it is also an indication that somebody on the ground is aware and cares if communications are cut off and passengers do not know what is going on.

They may not be able to do anything and passengers may realize that, but at least you know the ground is aware and you aren't alone.

As far as an on board nut-job being aware of any possible "trouble" he/

she may get into, I think they usually don't care if they are 911 fodder.

When I heard that a second plane hit on 911, on the way to work, I knew life (mostly @ airports) had changed right then.

Question: Two days ago I read in the  news :   Two U.S. fighter jets escorted a Canada-to-Panama flight back to  Toronto after a passenger  allegedly threatened the plane Friday  morning. The nature of the threat or why the passenger was agitated  were not specified. CBS News  reported that the passenger told a  flight attendant, "I have a bomb and I will blow up Canada."    What's the point of escorting the flight while it has been threatened by a passenger? How do they help to eliminate the threat?

What's the point in escorting a threatened flight with two fighter jets?

Two fighter jets escorting a plane with a situation is standard procedure in many countries. It's sometimes implied in the media that if the situation would turn into a 9/11-type hijacking it might be necessary to shoot the plane down but nobody seems willing to fully clarify who could take such a decision and under what conditions on the record.  If absolutely necessary the plane can be prevented from making a mess of a major city, but it is basically a rather obvious visible sign to anyone misbehaving in the plane that they are in very, very deep trouble.

You often hear about fighter jets being scrambled after an emergency. It seems to be standard procedure in many countries. Hypothetically, the fighter jets could be used to prevent a major catastrophe by destroying the plane. However, it is not clear who would take this decision. It is better to send the jets and then have to recall them rather than having to explain why action was not taken if a catastrophe does occur. The fighter jets may also be sent as a signal to the hijacker/terrorist that the situation is very serious. While fighter jets often complete these kinds of missions, it is usually for the purpose of providing assistance, e.g. for landing clearance for planes with dead radio.

Fighter jets often complete these kinds of missions but it is usually for the purpose of providing assistance, e.g. for landing clearance for planes with dead radio.


Presumably, they use an off-line transaction.

The reason your credit card has raised numbers is that, in the old days, before ubiquitous data connections, a card transactions used a machine like this to transfer an imprint of your card details onto a form, using carbon paper.

You would then sign the form and the merchant would send it off to the bank to get paid.

It wasn't possible to verify in advance that you had enough money in your account but the deal was that the bank would honour the transaction and then come after you with a big stick.

The point of my mentioning this is that, although we're now very used to the idea that the merchant talks to your bank while you make a card transaction, this wasn't the case even 20 years ago.

Today, it's still possible to make a card transaction without verifying in advance that the card has sufficient funds, so that you can still buy stuff on your card even if the merchant's phone line or internet is broken.

In fact, the last-case fall-back is to go back to the swipe machines and carbon paper.

It will either go through the airline's existing air-to-ground system (like the seat-back phones you pay $5/min for) or they've got a store-and-process-later arrangement with the card companies.

(Just because you can't use a phone doesn't mean the airline can't, they just follow certain conditions better)

What is it called?

Buying stuff on an airplane during flight is know is in-flight commerce (IFC) .

How it works?

Credit cards are swiped via wireless handhelds on aircraft but the transactions are processed when the aircraft gets on the ground.

Limitations

Because of this billing mechanism – which sometimes results in fraudulent transactions – there is a ceiling of the value of items that can be comfortably sold today.

Read more here and here .

I worked with the credit card processing at one of the bigger airlines a few years ago.

We used handhelds that stored the info from the magnetic strip of the card.

The transactions were uploaded to our back office system and then to the payment service provider after the flight landed.

The only "hard" protection is the modulo 10 checksum of the credit card number ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm ).

The fact that the airline knows exactly who is on a flight also makes it much harder to get away with this type of fraud.

During my time at the company I don't think I heard of a single case of attempted credit card fraud

(that doesn't mean there weren't any).

I think theft is a much larger problem in on-board retail.

Transactions are offline.

The data is sent to the payment gateway on connection between the POS and wifi/GSM network on the ground.

Fraud happens, a lot.

Airlines have dedicated departments to chase these failed payments with varied success.

One Dutch airline, once the card ceiling was crossed (e.g. upgrades for a family might cost over €1000 which might be the ceiling limit set) would have the captain make a call to have the card payment cleared.

You're welcome,Mr J.

Question: If telephones/smartphones/tablets are not allowed on planes, how comes when you buy duty free items from the cabin crew and pay by cc they will use the card reader?  I suppose that in order to remove credit there must be some sort of connection to the various credit cards circuits in real time in order to achieve this?

How are credit cards processed during flight?

Credit card transactions on airlines are done offline and then processed on landing. Alternatively, they may go through the airline's air-to-ground system.

The transaction either takes place via the airline's air-to-ground system or transactions take place offline and are processed once the aircraft is back on the ground.

The transaction either takes place via the airline's air-to-ground system or transactions are processed once the aircraft is back on the ground.


They have the usual transport options: shove into cargo area, on a flatbed truck, shipping container,...

They can also be attached below the wing of a large aircraft and flown with if there is no room in the cargo area.

(stolen from this question ) Notice the extra engine on the near wing.

The Conroy CL-44 "Skymonster" was built for the purpose of transporting three Rolls-Royce RB-211 engines.

It was a derivative of the Canadair CL-44 and was meant to transport the engines for the Lockheed Tristar .

Jack Conroy had before modified old C-97s to Super Guppy transporters, and those initially transported Saturn rocket stages for NASA.

The picture below was shamelessly copied from the Wikipedia article.

Note the bulges near the tail: They cover the hinges for the sideways opening fuselage.

Today, Boeing 747 freighters can swallow most engines, so in the age of widebody transporters there is no more need for special aircraft for engine transport.

Having lived for nearly 15 years around the Boeing factories in Seattle, it was a common sight to see a flat-bed truck with a tarp-covered engine driving up and down the freeway.

Just like other big industrial machinery, they build a mounting for it, put it on a truck, and drive it down I-5.

It's apparently pretty hard to get outer engine dimensions, but based on fan size and adding a bit, all but the largest engines will go on a standard truck.

Oversize permits are readily available.

Rolls-Royce makes engines in Derby (amongst other places) but not at the airport.

( East Midlands airport has one runway, 8200 feet, which is a bit tight for a 747.)

Therefore, engines must leave the factory by truck at least once.

I expect that the decision to send the dud engine for service by truck, boat, on the wing or in the hold will be purely economics.

Jet engine transportation is a highly specialized task, the primary method is ground transportation via truck and trailer.

It is important that the transport company uses fully air-ride trailers and advanced load securement techniques to ensure zero stress on sensitive engine components.

Peter Kämpf - While you are correct that some engines can fit inside of an aircraft for transport, the cost for this service is enormous when you compare it to a truck and trailer.

Also larger engines such as the Trent 1000

(Fits on a 787 Dreamliner) will not fit inside of an air cargo carrier.

Question: One of the optional services in  Rolls-Royce TotalCare  is "Engine Transportation"   This service includes routine transportation of engines between the customer’s main base (or designated station) and the engine shop, and/or remote site transportation.   Jet engines can be very large heavy and expensive items. How are they transported? Are they flown or do they use road transport? Are there dedicated vehicles?

How are off-wing jet engines transported?

Jet engines are usually transported by truck and trailer. Most will fit inside a wide-body plane or they can be shipped by container. In the past special planes were built to provide this service.

Flat-bed trucks can be used to transport the vast majority of jet engines. However, engines can also be transported on aircraft - either in the cargo area or below the wing of a large aircraft. Specific examples of aircraft that can transport engines include the Conroy CL-44 "Skymonster" and Boeing 747 freighters.

Jet engines can be transported on aircraft - in the cargo area or below the wing of a large aircraft. Specific examples of aircraft that can transport engines include the Conroy CL-44 "Skymonster" and Boeing 747 freighters.


A single engine plane can suffer from control problems due to torque.

An early famous example was the Sopwith Camel

As others have pointed out, torque effects have to be countered using the normal aerodynamic controls available to the pilot.

Some aircraft had extra-large ailerons because of this issue.

In contrast to what happens in helicopters, the static and dynamic stability will prevent big movements of propeller aircraft due to engine and propeller torque.

The biggest consequence, the rolling moment, is taken care of by roll damping.

When the propeller torque rolls the aircraft, the downwards-moving wing will see a higher, and the upwards-moving wing a lower angle of attack.

Both wings will create a rolling moment which will quickly stop the rolling motion.

All the pilot has to do is to restore the correct roll attitude using the ailerons.

The lift difference of the rolling aircraft also creates different drag on the left and right wings, so a small yawing moment will turn the aircraft slightly sideways when the rolling starts.

This has to be corrected by rudder input.

If we look at other secondary effects, the yawing motion will cause a slight pitch change by way of engine and propeller precession.

This also will be stopped quickly by pitch damping (the pitch movement changes the angle of attack on the horizontal tail surfaces), and the pilot needs to correct the pitch attitude again.

In consequence, changing RPM will induce slight movements around all three axes in a single-engined propeller airplane.

It is countered by the natural stability and the roll control provided by the ailerons.

If you have insufficient airspeed for roll control then you will be on the ground and your gear will prevent excessive rolling.

There is a big difference between the amount of torque delivered to the main rotor of a helicopter and that delivered to the propeller of a comparably-sized fixed wing aircraft.

Also, without the tail rotor, a helicopter in a hover has nothing to "push against" in order to deliver the needed torque to the main rotor.

If not for the tail rotor, torque delivered to the main rotor would cause the rest of the vehicle to spin up in the opposite direction.

Hovering flight would be pretty much impossible without something to aerodynamically generate opposing torque (tail rotor, second counter-rotating rotor, etc.).

Torque delivered to the propeller of a fixed-wing aircraft is opposed either through the ground (when stationary, taxiing or on take-off roll), or by the wings (with minor roll trim or control input) when in flight.

As explained in the other answers, propeller torque does induce certain effects, but they are of much less significance than that of a helicopter main rotor, and are dealt with by trim and pilot awareness/handling.

Torque is more noticeable in aircraft with tail wheels (tail draggers) which also have large engines (e.g. world war 2 vintage) for two reasons: If the throttle is advanced too quickly, you might not have enough airflow over the rudder to be able to counteract it and a swing followed by a ground loop could result.

At the point when the tail is lifted off the ground during the take off run, gyroscopic effects occur that could cause a swing (try holding a spinning top and then move it around -

it exerts forces in unexpected directions).

Also on aircraft with the largest engines, the torque could make one wing lower than the other during the take off run.

You also have the problem going around to be very careful with both throttle and rudder because these effects are more pronounced at lower airspeeds where airflow is less.

An aeroplane with a nosewheel is generally more stable on the ground (due to the CG being ahead of the main wheels rather than behind), so these effects are less noticeable.

Question: Helicopters need a tail rotor to balance the torque reaction that tends to rotate the main body sideways. Doesnt a single-engine plane suffer the same problem? I would imagine that (for example) the left wing would dip lower than the right due to the torque. How is it countered?

Do aeroplanes have to balance torque like helicopters?

In airplanes torque is countered by the natural stability and the roll control provided by the ailerons. Torque delivered to the propeller of a fixed-wing aircraft is opposed either through the ground (when stationary, taxiing or on take-off roll), or by the wings (with minor roll trim or control input) when in flight. However, a single engine plane can suffer from control problems due to torque.

Torque can cause control problems in single engine planes. However, the natural stability and roll control provided by the ailerons counter torque. Torque delivered to the propeller of a fixed-wing aircraft is countered by the ground or by the wings.

The natural stability and roll control provided by the ailerons counter torque. Torque delivered to the propeller of a fixed-wing aircraft is countered by the ground or by the wings.


In practical terms, no.

If you wanted to save/recover the dumped fuel

then you would have only two basic options: dump the fuel as usual and then recover it somehow from the air; or, pump the fuel in a controlled way into a container outside the aircraft.

The first option is probably impossible: how could you capture a huge cloud of fuel and fuel vapor mixed with the air?

That would be like gathering water from clouds.

The second is theoretically possible, but for civil aviation at least it probably requires too much equipment and risk.

You could pump the fuel into a drop tank then jettison it with a parachute for a soft landing.

Or you could pump the fuel into another aircraft via a tube, in a kind of reverse air-to-air refuelling.

Or if you're dumping fuel from a helicopter (does that ever happen?)

it could hover over a tank on the ground, pump out the fuel and then land.

But all of those suggestions are totally impractical (again, at least for civil aviation).

Adding drop tanks or air-to-air hoses would add huge cost in materials and training and reduce the useful load of the aircraft significantly, all for a situation that rarely occurs.

And for air-to-air pumping you would need an empty tanker aircraft to be available immediately, which is highly unlikely, plus there is the inherent danger of operating two aircraft very close together.

Since fuel dumping is an exceptional situation and many aircraft can't dump fuel anyway , it seems unlikely that investing in a recovery solution would be worthwhile.

In theory it could be done, you could rapidly dump fuel into empty tanks below the wings and drop them.

At a certain height they deploy Parachutes and land.

Just like the Space Shuttle ejects the side tanks.

But where?

Some fuel dumps are only authorized over water and it would cost more to rescue the tanks and bring them back to the airline.

Over land they'd probably smash into populated areas.

The cost for saving some thousands of $ of fuel is not fesable for the rescue.

Short answer

yeah

it could be possible, but dangerous and costly.

By conserve you mean collect for later use I am assuming.

While it is technically feasible to do that it is extremely impractical.

You'd have to either have another aircraft fly in formation in some sort of reverse in-air refueling system, or the pilots would need to fly over a system on the ground which would collect the fuel.

Any system to do this would require precision on the part of the aircraft needing to dump fuel, and in the kind of emergency where dumping fuel is required precision is one thing you aren't likely to get.

Also, the cost of implementing a collection system far outweighs the cost of the fuel you'd save.

I suppose the least expensive way to do it would be to reinforce the airplane structure so that it coud land at maximum takeoff weight.

Then no dumping would ever need to occur.

Still not cheap enough to be practical, though.

The weight of that extra structure would take fuel to carry around at all times, to save fuel only on the rare emergency.

The pilot can either keep circling around to burn it off (doesn't conserve it) or just land overweight without jettisoning.

Burning it off is not an option if you want to get on the ground now to deal with the emergency.

And landing overweight can create a new emergency if the gear collapses/too many tires blow.

Question: During emergencies pilots are authorised to dump fuel, but is there any way or method to recover the fuel that has been jettisoned?

Is it possible to recover dumped fuel?

It is not practically possible to recover dumped fuel. Theoretically, a plane flying alongside or tanks below the wings could be used, or even a system on the ground to collect the fuel. However, fuel is usually dumped in exceptional situations so investing in recovery is not likely to be worthwhile.

There is disagreement on whether or not fuel could be recovered. Theoretically, fuel could be dumped into empty tanks beneath the wings and then dropped or some kind of reverse in-air fueling system could be used or the aircraft could fly over a collection system on the ground. However, as fuel dumping is not something that is commonly required and not all aircraft are able to dump fuel, investing in a recovery system would not be worthwhile and would far outweigh any fuel savings.

As fuel dumping is not something that is commonly required and not all aircraft are able to dump fuel, investing in a recovery system would not be worthwhile and would far outweigh any fuel savings.


Qualification:

I worked at a busy drop zone for 10 years.

Just announce yourself on the airfield frequency about 5-10 minutes out

and they'll tell you what's going on, including which runway is active and how high they are jumping from - standard altitudes are 3000ft and 12,000ft AGL.

At our place it was really simple: left-hand for 34, right-hand for 16.

We landed everyone on the east side, and if we are dropping at 3000 all day you can just pop up to 4000 and be completely out of the way.

Under no circumstances make a cross-field pass as that's usually right in the middle of everyone else's landing pattern, and we don't carry radios.

If you are just passing by a 2km buffer is lots - no one is likely to be in the air that far away.

No reply usually means nothing in the air.

First of all, recurring DZ's have parachute symbols on sectional charts, so look for them!

The FAA regulations have this to say: Federal Aviation Regulation Part 105.25 requires that ATC be notified no earlier than 24hours before or no later than one hour before the parachute operation begins in Class E and G airspace.

Jumps in Class A, B, C and D airspace require an authorization from ATC.

This means that if you expect chute activity in the area, ask ATC!

Controllers are required to give traffic advisories to jump aircraft before the jump,and to issue advisories to all known aircraft that will transit the Class E airspace within which the jump operations will occur.

When time or the number of aircraft make individual transmissions impractical, advisories to nonparticipating aircraft may be broadcast on appropriate frequencies.

And as always, check the NOTAMS!

Are there any particular frequencies to monitor besides the airfield frequency?

How would I know parachuting is happening besides any NOTAMs?

Here in Seattle, jump aircraft are usually talking with ATC (Seattle Approach).

The jump airplane will announce 5 minutes out and the when the jump occurs.

In Europe, it's generally a good idea to be on the Flight Information Service (FIS) frequency, where you can receive information about active drop zones and/traffic information to the airplane performing the drop, as they need to call in on the FIS frequency and announce when they start the drop.

I'm not a pilot.

I did attempt to get a parachute license, but stopped after a couple of jumps.

I jumped at two different drop zones.

(And I'm from Sweden)

I just thought I'd offer a view from the other side.

At the DZs where I jumped, the pilot always talked to ATC before takeoff, so I would assume that ATC will know of any parachute activity.

The parachutists will fall, so if you can stay above the plane that will drop them, you'll be fine.

Where I jumped, 4000 m was highest allowed altitude without oxygen, so no one jumped from higher than that.

The parachutists will want to land at or very close to their field.

During the freefall part, they don't really drift with the wind.

Chutes will typically be opened at about 1000 m, and from that altitude, they will drift significantly with the wind.

Thus, they will be dropped upwind, and will typically not move very far downwind of the field, especially not at high altitudes.

So, in order of simplest/safest: Fly above them Fly downwind of their landing spot

If you need to fly close to their field, the higher up you can be, the better.

This should perhaps be taken with a few grains of salt, but hopefully others can chime in if I've said something incredibly stupid. :)

Question: There are several airfields nearby where parachuting activities routinely take place. How far away is considered to be a safe distance from the airfield when flying past it en-route to another destination? Are there any particular frequencies to monitor besides the airfield frequency? How would I know parachuting is happening besides any NOTAMs?

What should a pilot do when flying in the vicinity of parachute jumpers?

Controllers are required to give traffic advisories to jump aircraft before the jump,and to issue advisories to all known aircraft that will transit the Class E airspace within which the jump operations will occur. In Europe, it's generally a good idea to be on the  Flight Information Service  (FIS) frequency, where you can receive information about active drop zones and/traffic information to the airplane performing the drop, as they need to call in on the FIS frequency and announce when they start the drop. If you are just passing by a 2km buffer is lots - no one is likely to be in the air that far away.   The parachutists will fall, so if you can stay above the plane that will drop them, you'll be fine.

In terms of location, a 2-km buffer should be sufficient if you are just passing by. Never make a cross-field pass. Stay above the plane dropping the parachutists. In terms of information sources, controllers will issue advisories to aircraft due to pass through the airspace where the jump operations are taking place. Pilots should also check the NOTAMS. In Europe, you should be on the Flight Information Service frequency to receive information about drop zones and timing of drops. You should also look for parachute symbols on sectional charts to identify recurring DZs.


Was [towing unit or motors in landing gear] ever tested or assessed?

Yes.

2014 Main Gear Using the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) generator to power motors on the main wheels, the EGTS taxiing system allows aircraft to push back without a tug and then taxi without requiring the use of the main aircraft engines.

One wheel on each main gear is equipped with an electric motor to drive the aircraft From EGTS Airbus signs MoU with Honeywell and Safran to develop electric taxiing solution for the A320 Family From Airbus press release Lufthansa Technik has proven with a technology demonstrator that aircraft can be driven on ground by electric motors.

From Lufthansa Technik (with video) 2015

Towing Unit

As of 2015 Taxibot, a semi-robotic towbarless tractor which meets and connects to aircraft, is the only alternative taxiing system certified and currently in use by airlines in the market.

From Wikipedia 2016

Nose Gear Honeywell and Safran have pulled the plug on their jointly conceived electric taxiing system, while rival developer WheelTug aims to enter service with its system in 2018.

After thorough market analysis", the US supplier says, the two partners "agreed to stop work on the Electric Green Taxiing System due to dramatically lower oil prices and the current aviation industry's economic environment".

EGTS had been scheduled to enter service this year, with Honeywell and Safran having planned to produce a system for line- and retrofit on A320-family and Boeing 737 jets.

Meanwhile, Gibraltar-headquartered WheelTug plans to enter service with its nose gear-mounted electric drive system in 2018....

initially on 737s and, at a later stage, on A320-family ...

Neither Airbus nor Boeing are supporting the programme From FlightGlobal

Variations on this kind of scheme and designs are currently being worked on.

From what I remember, using electric motors are still pretty expensive, and also you're using them for a very short time frame, such that you're lugging around extra weight that is useful for a tiny portion of time(aka more fuel burn).

Tugs of various sorts have been used at various places as well.

Also consider that various engines need time to warm up before applying full throttle, sometimes just a few seconds, others a few minutes.

This is an older question, and I have no answer, just experience:

When I flew from Frankfurt (FRA) to Geneve (GVA) in January 2015, we were towed by a tug nearly all the taxiway to the runway.

We turned to the parallel taxiway "N north" to get rid of the tug, then went back on taxiway "N" to the runway.

Here is our way as tracked by my mobile GPS: The pilot told us in advance that we will to this, and that it is some kind of experiment / project / study about if it works.

(I guess more from logistics / operation side) From my data, I also have some time information: 12:12:

End of push-back 12:15:

Leaving terminal 12:21: turn right on "N North" 12:22: get rid of tug, start engines12:27:

Start moving again, and back to "N" 12:29: arriving at runway 12:31:

accelerating If I remember correctly, the engines were started when we were on "N north", so 5-6 minutes before takeoff.

However, we were taxiing to that place 20 without engines.

It would be interesting to know how much fuel could be saved by this procedure (It was a A320 or similar, I don't know), but at least, the aircraft didn't need any extra equipment.

(And yes, it was an ordinary tug, not this electrical stuff or similar.)

Along with fitting electric motors to allow push-back without a tug and more efficient taxiing, there is a plan to use tugs controlled by the aircraft for the taxi.

One simpler alternative for multi-engine aircraft is to taxi out with only some (or just one) of the engines running, starting the remainder within a few minutes of take-off.

It might not save as much fuel as, say, a tug, but it can be done with existing aircraft and without any extra equipment.

The major drawback of any of these approaches is that running time during taxi contributes to check-out of the fuel, fuel system and other engine systems which all have to perform properly for a safe take off.

Delaying engine startup reduces/limits the opportunity for such checks.

Nevertheless, I think this practice has been done/is being done in some situations.

Question: Does it make sense towing airplanes to the head of airstrip by electric means, whether internal or external?  Taxiing from the gate to the runway on jet power seems like a waste of fuel. Is it possible and it would make sense to tow the airplane to the start of take-off run by a motorized towing unit or perhaps with electric motors in the airplane's landing gear? Was this ever tested or assessed?

Does it make sense towing airplanes to the head of airstrip by external (eg electric) means?

A number of ways are being investigated for bringing the plane to the take-off area without burning jet fuel. These include tugs and electric motors. There is also ataxxing system using an Auxiliary Power Unit. That allows the plane to push baxk and taxi without using the main aircraft engines.

Specific examples of equipment used for this purposes include the EGTS taxiing system and Taxibot, a semi-robotic tractor without a towbar. This is the only alternative taxiing system that is currently being used by airlines. Various kinds of tugs have also been used and there are plans for aircraft-controlled tugs to be used in the future. Work is currently underway on designs to allow aircraft to be towed electrically. These include aircraft-controlled tugs for taxiing and installation of electric motors. However, the use of electric motors is costly and not necessarily beneficial as extra weight is being carried for a very short time, resulting in increased fuel burn.

The use of electric motors is costly and not necessarily beneficial as extra weight is being carried for a very short time, resulting in increased fuel burn.


In the same way than an aircraft will build static charge on the wings from friction with the air, the same thing can happen with helicopters from fast moving blades.

From a 1962 US Army document: Any aircraft flying in the atmosphere can be considered as a conductive body located in a highly electrically insulated environment.

In such a body, electrostatic charge is generated by three principal mechanisms: Charge transfer created by a triboelectric effect between the aircraft and the atmospheric particles, such as dust, water, water vapor, snow, etc.

Unbalance of the ionic content of the exhaust gases produced by the aircraft engine(s).

Induction charge due to high electrostaticfield gradients which are found occasionally in the aircraft flight path.

Source Here's a more detailed photo of the US army discharging a helicopter while wearing insulating gloves:

SGT Nathan Rodeheaven uses a static probe to discharge static electricity from a UH-60 Black Hawk before his teammate, PV2 Danny Browning, hooks up the cargo to the helicopter.

The safety measure prevents the hook-up man from being electrocuted in the event there is accumulated static electricity.

Photo: Kristin Molinaro

I am a Naval Aviator and as part of my water survival training, I was deposited by boat off the coast of Florida and picked up by helicopter.

It was a huge point of emphasis that we let the helicopter's rescue hook touch the water to discharge any built up static before we touched it.

No one in my class grabbed it before it hit the water, so I can't speak to how bad the shock would have been.

I work for a Christmas tree farm and we harvest our trees out of the field using a helicopter.

I am the hook man and attach the bundle of trees to the heli, then he takes them to another location.

In that breif trip during a rain storm, or even a foggy day static charge will build resulting in a very unpleasant shock.

Sometimes bad enough it will contract the muscles in my hand and arm.

I’ve been doing this for 3 years and finally invested in some 20,000Vac insulated gloves that are enough to keep this from happening.

Helicopters in normal weather will build up a static charge, just ask any ground crew for a logging helicopter.

Normally the hook will be grounded by dropping it on the ground before the hooker will touch it.

Or a grounding rod will be used to neutralize the static charge.

I was struck in the forehead in 1983 from the discharge off a CH-53.

I was wearing a kelvar helmet which was split down the middle from the strike, heart rate slowed down to 4 beats a minute thought I was a gone.

I was stationed at camp Pendleton USMC when it happened.

Yes they do.

I was involved in many HDSs (Helicopter Delivery Service) and would earth the Helo with a sheperds crook and trailing copper linkage - often getting a visible spark.

I also took part in the rescue of a few dozen (memory fades on how many) crew from a bombed ship with no hook and earthed the helo myself -

yes it hurt.

We didn’t have a static hook in my day.

I will tell you, sometimes the pilots would relieve the static charge by grounding the aircraft themselves.

Sometimes, they did not.

The static charge would vary From moderate to severe.

And, it could even be felt by your partner who was bracing you by the legs.

After the first couple of volunteer troopers started flinching from the shock and throwing the hook, me and my buddy got elected/volunteered to do it.

We airmobiled the entire battery-sized unit, alternating back-and-forth as hook up man.

By the time it was done, we were completely spent LOL.

82nd ABN 2/321 ,B /3

-319 1986-89.

See, CAA CAP 426, Helicopter External Load Operations, April 2006 6.25 Electrical Static Charges and 6.26 Dissipation of Static Electricity and Appendix B Static Electricity Charging Conditions

Question: So, I was re-watching The Hunt For Red October, (in light of current Russian shenanigans with Sweden), and there was a scene in which a crew-member on the ground was electrocuted by making contact (and presumably grounding) the helicopter, which had picked up a charge in the stormy weather. Can anyone explain more of what is going on here?

Can rotorcraft pick up a dangerous electric charge?

Helicopters build up static charge in the same way as airplanes. There are reported incidents of shocks from helicopters. Sparks can often be seen when the helicopter is earthed.

Helicopters can build up a static charge on their blades in the same way as aircraft do on their wings. There are personal recollections of seeing a spark or being electrocuted as a result of the discharge. One respondent was struck in the forehead by the discharge from a CH-53 and another often saw a visible spark when earthing the helicopter.


Nice question.

There are several ways how to get these information.

http://www.fallingrain.com/ : free to use, no registration needed.

World database of the airports and waypoints.

From these information you could easily make DB for waypoints.

EUROCONTROL

EAD ( https://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadcms/eadsite/index.php.html ): free to use, registration needed.

Big advantage - real and up to date information for all ECTL countries.

But a bit difficult navigation.

JeppView ( http://ww1.jeppesen.com/ ): very expensive SW, but the best in this time.

You will find there all information which pilot needs.

But it is not real database.

Garmin for pilots ( http://www.garmin.com/en-US/explore/intheair/ ):

another not free SW, very similair to JeppView but lightweighted. NAVIGRAPH ( http://www.navigraph.com ):

Great DB of all things which you need in FMC.

But I guess that they have it just for flight simulator.

OpenFlights ( http://openflights.org/data.html ): free DB of airports, airlines and routes.

You could downlod all data in one file :-)

I use the National Flight Data Center at http://nfdc.faa.gov

I had to write them a letter explaining why I wanted the data ( http://fplan.sf.net ) and

they provided me with a login.

Now, every 56 days, they send me an email telling me there's an update available.

Bad news: they recently switched from a flat file to some unbelievably convoluted xml format that I haven't yet written a parser for.

Also, it comes with a disclaimer that the data is not approved for navigation.

Given that I've already found two minor errors in it, just in the SF Bay area, that's understandable.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I keep a subset of the data on-line at SourceForge.

I try to keep it up to date.

It's at the Fplan project .

These files are in the old "nav" format; documentation is included in the zip file.

If someone needs these files, they're freely available and I'm happy to make small additions to the data if anybody wants, since I already have the tools to parse the FAA data files.

I'm also happy to share the tools if anybody wants.

Another good one for airports and navaids: http://opennav.com/ - has VORs, waypoints, etc.

I have successfully used The GPX Aviation Waypoint Generator from the free Navaid database ( http://navaid.com/GPX/ ) that outputs a GPX (XML type) file with all the waypoints, airports and every other elements you choose to include.

To make a request on this API, make sure you specify the min and max GPS coordinates of the area you want to cover.

This is a world wide database, not only for the US.

This is my first post so bare with me.

I don't know if you are trying to get one region only or a global data set.

The issue is that member states are responsible for their own airspace and thus airport/NAVAID/intersection/waypoint/so-on-and-so-forth location data.

You may want to see about getting a copy of ICAO document

7910 "Manual of ICAO identifiers" This book cost money though.

If you are interested in the North American region (U.S./Mexico/Canada/Caribbean/and-so-on) then you can get for free the FAA Location Identifier book with FAA Order JO 7350.9x.

The lat/long of every waypoint/NAVAID/Airport and the like is in it.

Unlike a previous answer post you don't have to ask for access permission either.

To keep things simple here is a link.

FAA Location Identifiers

That's what I got for you

Updating: The link is at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/NASR_Subscription/

This provide the text file along with layout data for all the fixes, etc.

The CIFP can be downloaded as well, but the layout is commercialized (~$400).

I have not been able to programmatically download the zip file.

Question: I wonder if it is possible to download a database with waypoints, navaids, airports and airways between them. I've been working with AIP documents but it's difficult to get raw information from them and they only have information about waypoints.  I happened to find skyvector.com and I thought there would be an easier way to obtain that amount of information.

Where to find a waypoints/fixed points, navaids and airports database?

OpenFlight, National Flight Data Center, GPX Aviation Waypoint Generator are all waypoints/fixed points, navaids and airports databases

Suggested resources include OpenFlights, the National Flight Data Center, opennav.com, the GPX Aviation Waypoint and the FAA Location Identifier book.