Originally Posted by
paco
Most basic autopilots I've used do overshoot, especially on VOR coupling, hence my preference for using the heading bug and doing it myself. It's only the more modern ones that have an element of anticipation.
What's wrong with the second question? Simply remember Extra Chicken Tikka Masala (EAS, CAS, TAS, Mach No). Whichever one is constant in the climb, the one on the right is increasing, and on the left decreasing. The reverse for the descent.
Phil
Oh ok, I did not know older autopilots could not anticipate
For the second one there is something clearly wrong.
In the general case the answer is right, yes.
However (!!) you could be climbing through an inversion ! This would revert the variation of Mach (TAS is assumed constant, not CAS here)
Is there a way to tell the autority (examiner or automated correction algorithm) my short explanation based on the keyword "temperature inversion" ?
So how can I know if EASA wants me to be super rigorous or to talk about the general case ?
This is typically why I will do the entire QB before going to the exam.