Many commercial airliners have car-like window-wipers. I would presume this is for taxiing only, as the wind would surely keep the windows free from water when airborne, or do they turn them on in flight?
Also, don't these wipers cause a lot of drag, and wouldn't it be more economical to have some kind of air-jet blowing from nozzles to keep the windshield clear?
In the Falcon 50 and 900, we have windshield wipers that we are allowed to use in flight (up to 205 KIAS), but I have never used or seen them used in the eight years that I have been flying them because they simply aren't needed. They are usually stowed out of the wind stream so don't really cause much drag.
The Learjet's on the other hand DO have hot air that blows on the windshield and we sometimes used it to blow water droplets off of the windshield when on the ground. However, the primary purpose of the hot air was to heat and defog the windshield.
On a larger airplane, the additional piping, valves, etc. required to get the hot air all of the way up to the windshield actually weighs and costs more than just putting the windshield wipers up there along with electrically heated windshields to keep them from fogging up.
In the EMB-145 we could use the wipers below 170 KIAS. Wipers are really only useful on or near the ground, so this was not a limitation that really mattered. Our windscreen wasn't the best at deflecting rain, so in heavy precip we would use them inside the FAF when looking for lights/the runway and during taxi to the gate. On departure we would use them in heavy precip to taxi and takeoff, turning them off in the after takeoff flow.
Other airplanes, as Lnafziger points out have better flow characteristics over the windscreen or blown air and are not equipped with wipers.
In any airplane, the wipers are only potentially useful for ground ops, takeoffs and landings and serve no purpose at altitude.
In addition to the wipers, we were also equipped with an electric defroster to keep the windscreen free of fog and ice, and this was used during the descent from cruise to landing.
On the 747-100 and -200 airplanes we had windshield wipers which we occasionally used on short final in heavy rain. The switches were on the overhead panel on the captain's side, but the usual procedure was to ask the flight engineer to turn them on but to stand by to turn them off if the visibility was worse with them on than off, which was sometimes the case. I only remember leaving them on for the touchdown a couple of times.
We never used them while taxiing that I recall.
They were very noisy, distractingly so.
Many commercial airliners have car-like window-wipers. I would presume this is for taxiing only, as the wind would surely keep the windows free from water when airborne, or do they turn them on in flight? Also, don't these wipers cause a lot of drag, and wouldn't it be more economical to have some kind of air-jet blowing from nozzles to keep the windshield clear?
Recently I was checking in to a flight and was asked if I'd like a window or aisle seat as usual and choose a window seat. I was then told that there are no more window seats available but I could get an aisle seat without someone sitting next to me and then just take that window seat. The plane was an ATR-72 so the rows were 2+2 seats. I know about weight distribution to the front/back but I couldn't come up for a good reason to do this. What could be the reason for not giving me that apparently free window seat right away?
The Federal Flight Deck Officer page on Wikipedia says this: Under the FFDO program, flight crew members are authorized to use firearms. A flight crew member may be a pilot, flight engineer or navigator assigned to the flight. To me, it seems like this would be crucial information for the PIC to know, if their flight engineer (for example) was armed; but on the flip-side of this, the engineer might want to keep that to himself if he's with a crew he hasn't flown with before. Is there a guideline on whether an FFDO should inform the crew that he's armed?
I understand the rationale for putting seat backs straight, folding tables, fastening seatbelts etc., but I've never really understood why the window blinds matter.
After answering this question on History.SE, I started to wonder if it would be possible to find out even more detail about the plane now that its serial number is known. I have no idea what kind of flight records the US Army Air Corps kept, however. I know most flight logs today are kept by pilot, but I imagine there would be some way to trace what pilots flew a particular plane. I have no idea if this is possible for USAAC trainer planes in the 1930s. Could I get access to these records? If so, how would I go about it? I'm mostly interested in seeing if I can find out more information
I have not even an idea about how I would search for that on Google, that is why I'm trying my chance here. As electrical engineer I have no clue about fluid mechanics. We all now that when water is pumped very fast into firefighters tube, it gets very rigid and tends to be straight. What is this effect called, I'm interested in doing some research about the forces applied by such a tube from its initial folded position to the final position. Thanks
These days, when reading news about missing Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, I keep coming across a scenario where pilot might have deliberately turned off the transponder which is used for the communication of flight with ATC. When there is a possibility that any bad thing can happen when pilot turn off transponder, why would one give the ability of turning off the transponder to a pilot when he/she usually depends on instructions from ATC or flight control. Is there anyway that ATC can turn on transponder back from ground?
Can someone explain why the aircraft would fly in an arc using the satellite as a reference point? Have I missed something?
I just finished reading an interesting post where the author suggests that the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 could have 'hidden' under the cover of Singapore Airlines flight 68 to fly...) sounds plausible. I also read another book where a bomber (flying under the identity of a commercial jet) masked a business jet to get it into an area without detection. Naturally, both examples are taken from fiction, but I'm wondering: Would there be any hints now in retrospective to suggest they were being followed? Their transponder was off of course, but I'm wondering if for instance
In the 911 terror attack the transponders were turned off. Who is to blame for the lack of foresight that has allowed another jet liner to shut off their transponders. This is a ¼ billion-dollar ship; it seems impossible that engineers would not be able to design a safe and reliable back up transponder system that would not jam other signals, and would not be a fire hazard.