ATPL Flight Planning/PEXO

[H-Dog]

Hi all,

Just sat ATPL Flight Planning and absolutely tanked it. I finished with half and hour left and went back to double check the big questions. All of my answers were within 50KG (Usually 10-30Kg) of my selection and I clicked the finish button thinking I had nailed it. I put a lot of study into this and like to think I am a pretty switched on guy, I passed all of the practice exams I did with 90% plus. I was working the questions accurately and not using "rough" figures etc.
They rolled out the new PEXO system today so I wonder if the questions have been re-worked. I think what may have burnt me is the CASA rounding/accuracy limits. A lot of my answers/working (EMZWs, max allowable altitude etc.) were very close to the limits/mid points so I worked them accurately (Instead of rounding weights to the nearest 1000KG, temps to nearest 5 degrees etc.).
Has anyone else sat AFPA recently? (Particularly post 24th Sep using the new PEXO system) I would be interested to know how you did.

Thanks

[Runaway Gun]

Does 'Tanked it' mean Fail or Pass?

[drpixie]

Have a look at the other threads on this.

On the old system (probably the same questions, most were updated quite recently) and CASA exam guide, you are NOT asked for the most accurate answers - you are asked to follow the SOPs.

(Yes I know that - regarding FPL - the exam guide takes lots of reading between the lines, but that's what we've got. I know, I was bitten by the previous exam changes, but got through in the end.)

Edited to add - Note the new exam guide (May 2013). A little clearer and more complete than the old.

[H-Dog]

Ha ha, tanked means failed miserably. I would have been a bit of a knob to get on here and tell everyone how awesome I did in my exam ;)

[Howard Hughes]

I think what may have burnt me is the CASA rounding/accuracy limits. A lot of my answers/working (EMZWs, max allowable altitude etc.) were very close to the limits/mid points so I worked them accurately (Instead of rounding weights to the nearest 1000KG, temps to nearest 5 degrees etc.).If the syllabus calls for rounding then that is what you do. If you follow directions, you will find your answers will be almost spot on.

[firethelaser]

H-Dog, I also sat the exam yesterday. Having previously failed it I feel your pain. This time round I really focused on learning the procedures precisely as CASA describe in their May version of the ATPL exam info booklet.
I'd have to agree that your quest for super accuracy is probably what let you down, as has already been stated here you have to simply follow the SOP and the result you come up with at the end of your workings should be spot on with one of the available answer choices.
:ok:

[Joker89]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fcl/download/atpl-aero-info.pdf

New guidelines for pexo.

[go_black]

Hdog and firethelaser what material did you use to study?

[firethelaser]

I self studied all ATPLs using AFT notes and cyber exams, then after my flight planning failure spent the little bit extra to get the Avery exam booklet only (as I wanted some fresh questions) and found that worked well.
Highly recommend AFT notes, and then using the Avery exams it just gave me that little bit extra of an overview looking at workings from a different perspective and playing with some different structured questions etc.

[Joker89]

Does anyone know if you a have to round BRW to nearest 1000kg or the nearest 2000kg? Been using nearest 2t but Avery says use nearest 1t which is lots more time in interpolation.

[kingRB]

Slam, i'd hardly say its a walk in the park given it's notoriety and failure rate.

Agree with everything else you've said.

Despite the study and work I put into it, I still distinctly feel I had a certain amount of luck to get through it on the first go. I know plenty of well prepared, intelligent candidates that have done all the right things and still failed it repeatedly before finally having the "heavens align" to achieve a pass. It's just one of those kinds of exams. Too many variables and not enough time.

[H-Dog]

Thanks for that pearl of wisdom Slam Click, ha ha.

I have used the Rob Avery notes to study which I have found pretty good (Although things obviously have not gone according to plan). The only problem I have with the Avery notes is that the working has not been updated to the new CASA rounding/accuracy limits so if you use the correct rounding you get an answer ballpark to what Rob got but not exactly the same (There is a section on the CASA SOP but the pracci exams and examples do not follow it). Not a big deal but it does not do a good job of testing your adherence to the SOP. Given the money you have to pay for these notes it would be nice if they were accurate.

You round BRW to the nearest 2000KG, it is a little grey the way Rob explains it (I think it might be a typo in his notes) but it is discussed on Pg 2-2, para 11 of the 727 POH.

[mcgrath50]

H-Dog, I think that was changed. Rob Avery issued a supplement early this year with a number of rounding changes including rounding to the nearest 1,000. Using that got me a pass this year.

[H-Dog]

Neg,

It states in the 727 POH that you round to the nearest 2000KG. I think that the CASA rounding/accuracy limits SOP attempts to reference you to this but it has got the paragraph wrong (Points you to para 9 which is nothing)
I have also confirmed this with Rob and Gary (The bloke in charge of these exams at CASA).
Have subsequently passed this exam using this method. My tip for the exam is to slow down, take your time and know the accuracy limits. I didn't do any extra study for my second attempt I simply slowed down and double checked everything to prevent me from making any stupid mistakes. There's plenty of time if you know the material well.
For info, I did have 1 curly question that I hadn't seen before as follows;
You have just taken off at xxxx BRW and the LG did not retract. You are going to climb to 10000' and dump fuel before descending to land. Your FOB at BRW was yyyyy. What is the ETI between T/O and landing.

I worked it out as follows:
1. Calculate climb time/fuel
2. Calculate descent time/fuel (Landing at 72600KG, MLW)
3. The difference in weight between TOPC and TOPD is the amount of fuel you need to dump/burn (The FOB that it gives you is irrelevant for this question)
4. Calculate EMZW (Half way between TOPC and TOPD weight)
5. Calculate Fuel Flow with LG down at 10k at this EMZW.
6. Convert this FF to KG/min (I.e divide by 60)
7. Add this on to your dump rate (1050 Kg/min)
8. Use this figure to calculate the ETI to dump the fuel.
9. Add all ETIs up

This isn't necessarily an accurate answer (I.e how long does it take you to fly the circuit to land given you allow for approach fuel etc. etc.) but I think it's what CASA is after and as we know it's not about getting the correct answer, it's about getting the answer that CASA got. It's a bit of a joke given that CASA have not provided any guidance for questions like this and there are numerous ways you could work this out.

As mentioned earlier I can recommend the Rob Avery material to study. From what I have seen all of the courses are much of a muchness.

Best of luck all with this one, and may the flight planning gods look favourably upon you when you sit the exam.

[Joker89]

Well done h dog, thanks for the advice

[Julien33]

Hi all

I am going through CASA information booklet again and a couple of things are confusing me a little, the booklet says:

"For climbs and descents the candidate should use the met data closest to the 2/3rd height for the climb, and 1/2 height for a descent, as per paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above"

Let's take a climb to FL330 for example, I used to use FL220 data and therefore interpreted between FL185 and FL235 RWST data but reading the CASA booklet again I am now wondering if I shouldn't just use FL235 data with no interpretation as it's the closest from FL220.

What's your take on that, I have read bob avery handout on tips to speed up and conform with casa accuracy limits but I am just a bit confuse on this one after reading the casa leaflet again.

Also on DP OPS the CASA booklet states that Where a descent to a lower level is required, a “normal descent” as per the B727 Handbook on page 4-3 is to be planned. I always assumed an instantaneous descent to FL130 on that case, did this changed with PEXO or that instantaneous descent assumption is just valid enought for CP and PNRs ?

Thanks heaps,

Julien

[firethelaser]

I too wondered the same about the 2/3rds climb requirement but you'll find that you should use the 185 RSWT data for cruise levels up to and including FL310, and use 235 data for FL330 and above. My understanding is that there is to be no interpolation between RSWT levels at any time.

Assume instantaneous descent for DP and 2E ops, the "descent to lower level" applies to a yaw damper level or for a descent from cruise down into a holding level etc.

[Joker89]

I agree, Upto and including f310 use 185, above f310
Use f235. This is what I understand to be correct. I also believe you should not interpolate between levels at any stage.
Half of this exam is luck IMO, so good luck!!

[flyaus]

Thought I would add my 5 cents. Passed well yesterday - after a bad fail 10 days ago. My path was AFT distance (this is the 4th subject I have done with them - but the first time I have also used someone else to help) to learn the whole process and do the 8 practice tests, then i went to UNSW for 1.5 days to do practice exams. I then failed, took a breath, got the Rob Avery ATPL 5 test pack and his speed guide - and that was the final piece I needed to be able to handle it.

Cheats I can give you (if you can call them that...)
- I used the SGRs from AFT - which are also close to the AVFACTS ones. The UNSW use a slightly different set which I found (for me) it was often out in the EMZW so i had to redo.
- On your ERC mark the tracks that come up in your pracs with highlighter (I did just the markers NOT the whole lines) and mark the waypoints that you see come up in the pracs so you can find them quick in the test
- Write distances on the ERC for regular legs (eg SYD-ML, ADEL-PH etc) to save you in the test
- Highlight (well) the edges of the pages you always use in the B727 manual (Descent Table, DP FF table, Fuel for NO/DP/1E, Altitude->Temp) as it will make the flicking faster. I had tabs in the first test and had to remove them - and it made it real hard even though i knew where the pages where
- Put notes in the B727 man next to things so you dont forget when you turn to it - EG YAW Damp Inop = NO TF Holding, Yam Damper Mach numbers for heights (they never change - 290 = .73 etc)
- Start at Q1 !! You will build up during the test and starting at the last question just puts you in the wrong place.

Grab the CASA PDF from Joker89 above - that will give you the guides for interpolation and rounding you need to do. Good luck to all - now onto the last 3 subjects :)

[Jimboboy]

hello joker
whats the CASA PDF?
is there any chance to send me for FP in atpl?


thanks

[thorn bird]

Sad thing, reading this thread and the effort and anguish you young guys are putting in to this, I went through much the same back in the sixties, except back then it didn't cost you for the privilege. There is bugger all of that effort and anguish that through my 47 years of committing aviation that I have ever used. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our so called regulator could come up with some sort of a test that was relevant.

[Stretch06]

They (CASA) advertise on the website that the pass rate is as low as 33% first time! but follow up saying the exam is valid.

If a flying school had a first time pass rate of PPL or CPL of its students as 33%, CASA would be reviewing the AOC and privileges of training.

[Joker89]

The exam is bull****

[De_flieger]

Looking at the pass marks that CASA publishes, the other subjects have between 69% and 92% of candidates passing. The fact that Flight Planning has a published pass mark of 39% says there is something very wrong, particularly given that the helicopter version of the exam has 90% of their candidates passing the exam. Maybe its easier to get a helicopter ATPL and convert across to fixed wing? With the massive discrepancy in pass marks between subjects, and between helicopter and fixed wing versions of the same exam - which should be of approximately equal difficulty - it is clear there are problems with the CASA system.

[Jimboboy]

Hello
I'm using two materials one from aft the other one is from Unsw
Now the question is this
For normal ops and yaw damper 10kg/nm is used and for 1 inop 11,dep13,tail skid 11 and landing gear 20
However the unsw is using 1 inop 10 dep 12 and tail 15
Which ones are correct and give you the closest answer in the exam?
Cheers

[drpixie]

Jimboboy, there is nothing magic about those numbers - they are just approximate SAR at average weight.

They don't need to be brilliantly accurate, because you are only using them to estimate mid-point weight.

So have a look at the tables and calculate SAR at suitable weight, for appropriate altitude. Remembering that appropriate altitude will be lower than cruise for 1 INOP, Depressurised, gear down, etc.

[markbar]

Jimboboy - how old are your UNSW notes?

I recently did the course there and they used:

NO - 9
YD INOP - 9
TS - 10
1INOP - 11
DP - 12
GEAR EX - 22

These numbers are +/- 1kg/nm for winds >40kts (20kts in the case of DP and GEAR).

The notes and figures that I picked up doing the UNSW course were very good and I managed to pass (over 90%) first time (some how:confused:).
Its a very good course if you can fork out the money and worked well for many of us in the class (they give you your money's worth with about 3 trees worth of practice papers)

[MadMadMike]

For some reason can't figure out which table to use for DP fuel flow.

Eg. F130 ISA+7 66t EMZW = 4703kg/h

I know it's staring me right in the face, just can't find it!

[flyin fijian]

I was doing 1 engine alt. cap......got my altitude to fl210 ,since fl210 is right in the middle of 2 weathers fl185 & fl235....should i just take the average of of the two weathers...:confused:

[BleedingAir]

Correct. The method of assessment is the problem in this exam. I disagree with those who say the entire subject is obsolete due to the nature of modern jet operations (i.e. you won't have to "use" anything you learn in FPL) - the subject itself covers important concepts that remain valid even when you're not doing any hard calculations yourself. That said, I wouldn't have a hope of getting 10% on this exam now.

The exam itself doesn't assess subject matter knowledge. It assesses whether your method of calculating the answers was the same as the examiner's, and whether you can do it in a ridiculous amount of time. Plenty of people who know the subject back to front and got 30%. This shouldn't happen.

[safe_arrival]

How often do the ATPL theory providers match there study materials up to the latest of MOS?
Does CASA inform these organisations to changes because as they state in the Info exam booklets they do not regulate them so who really know if the books and roundings are correct before you sit the exam and find out for yourself.

[jjhews]

Anyone know of pdf versions of the Boeing 727 Performance & Operating Handbook floating around?

[Checkboard]

I disagree with those who say the entire subject is obsolete due to the nature of modern jet operations (i.e. you won't have to "use" anything you learn in FPL) - the subject itself covers important concepts that remain valid even when you're not doing any hard calculations yourself.
Exactly. Look at the Westwind crew who didn't calculate accurate fuel, didn't calculate off track PNR when the weather deteriorated and ended up in the drink... some jet jobs don't give you a computer print out, and some in-flight fuel decisions aren't on any computer plan.

[Dawn Patrol]

Sitting the exam late this week. How do the AFT CyberExams compare to the actual exam for those that have done both?

Most of the questions involving calculations are type in answers, not multiple choice like the practise exams.

[jjhews]

Most of the questions involving calculations are type in answers, not multiple choice like the practise exams.


To what degree of accuracy? I've read in some texts 1000 and others 2000 kg

[Dawn Patrol]

To what degree of accuracy? I've read in some texts 1000 and others 2000 kg

1% of the flight fuel is the tolerance I was told (on a phone call to casa). So if you work out 16,000 kg for the flight you get +/-160kg.

[VH-RME]

1000kg? No way, the maximum fuel difference from start to finish would be 10-20000, for the tolerance I'm guessing it's more around 50-100kg