There is some debate at my ATPL school about whether to use 100% of the wind in the CAP Climb Graphs (this is the only graph that doesn't compensate for the head wind / tail wind in the graph)
The climb graph for the SEP1 outputs rate of climb and STILL AIR climb gradient. That for the MEP1 aircraft outputs rate of climb. Neither STILL AIR climb gradient nor Rate of climb are affected by winds, so there is no wind input to these graphs.
The Climb Limited TOM graph for the MRJT1 outputs the maximum TOM at which the aircraft can achieve the minimum legal
STILL AIR Climb Gradient. So once again wind plays no part in the process and therefore is not an input to the graph. Note that it is not simply that headwinds and tailwinds are not compensated for in these graphs. Winds have no relevance at all to these graphs.
Some SEP1 and MEP1 questions involve calculating the distance required to achieve a given height or the obstacle clearance for a given obstacle height and distance. The CAP698 includes worked examples for two of these questions. In both of these worked examples there is no 50% / 150% factorization applied to the stated headwind or tailwind components. The exam questions should apply the same logic. BUT it is of course possible that whoever is creating the exam questions these days has made some errors.
Is it possible that those candidates who got questions wrong had forgotten to use the following factorization for the MEP1.
3.2.1 Climb graphs
NOTE: If a graph is used to show compliance with the obstacle clearance requirement, the gradient from 50 ft to the assumed engine failure height is to be the average all-engine gradient x 0.77. This is equivalent to the distance travelled with all engines operating x 1.3.