The questions are yet again an example of the poor standards within the examination process. The examiners make far too many assumptions and they exhibit their own poor knowledge of aircraft systems and flight operations. Questions of this kind do little to test the student and in general reduce their self-confidence about aircraft knowledge and operations in general. In addition, the examiners add confusion by sowing seeds of doubt at an early stage of a career:- first learnt, best remembered.
An answer to question 1 (b) should be qualified by the aircraft type i.e. Avro RJ Thrust levers “retarded” to ground idle.
For question 2 – where there may be no appropriate answer, add the aircraft type and the operation. i.e. Avro RJ, “my airline”; the ‘minimums’ call sounds at the bugged radio altitude, but my airline’s SOP (CAA approved) is to set the radio altitude DH bug to DH plus 15 ft.
Question 3 is a mess as it mixes aircraft certification standards with flight operations.
For certification of the aircraft, the requirement for fail operational landing system is defined in JAR-AWO, “a Cat 3 operation with no DH or DH below 15m”; definitely not student reading matter.
Cat 3B is an operational clearance, that a) requires a suitably equipped aircraft (JAR-AWO); and b) approval from both the national authority of the operator and the authority of the airfield where the operation is conducted (outside JAA).
JAR-OPS complicates matters further as in table 7 of Subpart E appx 1, DH is listed against RVR (three RVR options for Cat IIIB), and furthermore the only reference to fail operational equipment is that for rollout guidance.
The text in subpart E fails to clarify the ambiguity, whilst subpara 4 (ii) states the equipment required, the value of DH is not explicit.
Subpara 4 (iii) deals with no DH ops but without reference to the required equipment.
Thus question (c) can only be answered with caveats, but what chance that a student will have (or indeed requires) the necessary information or experience.