My take on the 4 questions proffered -
Question 1 - Take 2 steps back and have a very good look at the question again. The examiner states “For the same power setting” as the initial parameter in the question. Jet engines do not produce power directly, they produce thrust. The power produced is a function of speed (which, in the question, is increasing). Power = Force (Thrust) X Velocity (TAS). So, if the examiner really meant power, it will increase (at a constant thrust) as speed increases (which it is). As the examiner states “same power setting”, to achieve this you would have to deliberately reduce the thrust levers to maintain the required constant power (an unthinkable proposal) as you accelerate. So, in this case, EPR will be decreasing by your commanding the thrust levers to reduce.
If the examiner meant for the same TLA (Thrust Lever Angle), and I can only second guess him/her, EPR will again reduce as speed increases. EPR is the ratio of Pt7 (Exhaust Pressure) to Pt2 (Total inlet pressure). With increasing speed, and with all other engine parameters being equal (including Exhaust Pressure), the INCREASING Total pressure at the engine inlet due to ram, produces a LOWER Pt7/Pt2 ratio, i.e. EPR. Thus, EPR will again be reducing. (Now this is a believable and common situation, compared to the ludicrous “Same Power” scenario).
My money is on C as the correct answer.
Question 2 is Airline or Manufacturer specific. Do you mean De-Rated Thrust, or Reduced Thrust (Flex / Assumed Temp)?
There is considerable merit in using De-Rated Thrust for an Anti-Skid Inop scenario. It allows for lower V1 speed due to the lower Vmcg, and a V1 as low as possible is your best friend in an Anti-Skid Inop Rejected Takeoff. Whilst there should be no Performance constraint in using Reduced Thrust (Flex / Assumed Temp), provided that the RTOW is correctly reduced, it is undesirable to use Reduced Thrust as your V1 will be further down the Runway, closer to the end of the ASDA, and the aircraft is in an ‘Accelerate-Stop compromised’ situation with Anti-Skid Inop. Thus, many manufacturers and Operators say go ahead with a Derated Thrust Takeoff, but caution against, or prohibit Reduced thrust.
My money is on C as the correct answer (There is no C, C being “It’s Type specific or Airline Specific).
Question 3 - We agree, B is the correct answer. The reference would be in FAR/JAR 25. I don’t have a copy of these docs to cut and paste on this computer, but here is the quote from the Australian CAO 20.7.1B (Which is essentially the same as the FAR and JAR).
10 LANDING CLIMB PERFORMANCE
10.1 For the purposes of subparagraph 5.1 (c), the landing climb requirements are met if, in the landing configuration an aeroplane has a gross gradient of climb of not less than 3.2% at a climbing speed not in excess of 1.3 VS with all engines operating.
The emboldening and enlarging of the “in the landing configuration” is mine.
Question 4 is again Airline specific (with one exception), there’s no legislative requirement in this regard. In most modern aircraft where the cruise thrust limit is specified in the FMC (Which the Auto-Thrust would follow following engine failure), the default setting is customer-defined. My own operator has chosen Climb as the Cruise Thrust default limit, so that’s what the Auto-Thrust would follow subsequent to engine failure in cruise.
The one exception is where the aircraft is passing over very high terrain, and terrain clearance following engine failure in cruise and the ensuing drift-down (2000 Ft clearance), is predicated upon the best available drift-down profile to clear the high areas, that is, with MCT set.
My money is on D as the correct answer (There is no D, D being “Sit on your hands and evaluate the situation”). Putting aside the non-existent response D, the closest that we can come to a LEGISLATIVE requirement is MCT (which you’ve chosen) to cover the high-terrain drift-down case, so B is your best option.
Lots of Ifs, Buts, and It Depends, but I hope that this is of some help.
Regards,
Old Smokey