ATPL Performance and Loading Exam Questions

[oneday_soon]

Hi All

I am currently using Gavin Secombe and Rob Avery practice exam questions for the P&L exam. Can anyone who has used these questions before comment on how close to the real exam they are.

Cheers

ODS

[HappyBandit]

Ditto....wondering the same for the flight planning ATPL? Any comments very welcome

[Benny71]

Gavin Secombe's Performance and Flight Planning practice exams are pretty spot on. In fact, I think his Flight Planning exams exceed what is required for the exam.

[Continental-520]

Can't comment on the Gavin Seccombe notes, cause I used Nathan Higgins, but one lesson that I learned the hard way about that exam was that the pencil needed to be hideously sharp for the trim sheets.

I.e. sneak a sharpener into the exam if you can, since it isn't (or wasn't) an approved item to be taken in to the exam room.

Also, on a side note, can someone out there with the know-how remind me of what a 'running load limit' is?? Can't remember that far back.


520.

[AerocatS2A]

Ah, you don't need a pencil sharpner, just a mechanical pencil.

I think the running load limit is the weight that can be carried per metre longitudinally. E.g., you may be able to carry a heavy box lying lengthwise but not standing on its end.

[flyhardmo]

I used Gavin's courses for both and did really well. His Perf/loading is spot on. If you pass that the real test is no problem
Gavn's flt planning practise tests are much harder than the real exam time wise. His practise exams also leave very little room for error as he tries to build your speed and accuracy. If you can finish it within 3 hrs and get over 75%, you will ace the real exam, unless CASA has employed someone to change evreything to trick people.

[airjordan]

I used Gavin's practice exams for P&L and got 94% in the real exam. As said previously, it goes above what is needed.

goodluck!

[rapiddescent]

I did a course in Richmond by Len Sales. Exam was easy after that.

Forget the pencil sharpener, use a ruler and measure the sheet! i.e. work out how many milimeters each square is and then just add and subtract to end up with a result...which you then MEASURE from the datum.

100% every time. just add/subtract correctly!

[john_tullamarine]

the pencil needed to be hideously sharp for the trim sheets

Commenting as one who designs the beasts ..

(a) ALWAYS use a rule (aviation IDs were developed for trimsheet use, not security, in the first instance) otherwise you are wasting your time

(b) make sure that your rule is set parallel to the vertical guide lines .. remember that the whole trimsheet is drawn to a vertical grid of index unit .. so if the rule is skewed, accuracy is up the put ..

(c) take some care with trimline interpolation otherwise the accuracy goes out the window. It is for this problem that many trimsheets have sloping grids on each trimline .. this is a graphical trick to "move" the trimline to the left or right so that the trimline calculation starts from a whole unit .. ie instead of two interpolations you only have to worry about one .. reduces the overall error quite a bit

(d) a well-designed trimsheet, executed with a bit of care .. will give you a calculated CG typically accurate to 2-3 millimetres .. given that the starting CG is never anywhere near that accurate, the trimsheet, to all intents and purposes, is just as good as using an electronic calculator from an accuracy consideration.

(e) exam needs aside, please don't fall into the trap of thinking that your calculated CG, expressed to umpteen decimal points ... represents anything that accurate .. at best, the calculated CG is only an approximation .. not due to the loading system but due to the errors inherent in

(i) the empty weight data

(ii) standard weights (if you are using these)

(iii) presumptions of centroidal loading in any bay.

.. oh, and a moderately sharpened pencil is a good idea.


100% every time. just add/subtract correctly

.. a bit over the top, a waste of time, and quite unnecessary .. indeed, you are far more likely to make mistakes with this sort of nonsense than just exercising a bit of care with a pencil and rule .. which is easy and very accurate. If you want to do the working out kg to IU thing, then don't measure the tick to tick IU delta .. count the number of ticks to get a far better average kg to IU value.

.. how is Len these days ? .. haven't seen him in years ..

[AerocatS2A]

(b) make sure that your rule is set parallel to the vertical guide lines .. remember that the whole trimsheet is drawn to a vertical grid of index unit .. so if the rule is skewed, accuracy is up the put ..
The most accurate way I found to do this is to use two set squares rather than a ruler. Just put one so it's inline with a reference vertical or horizontal line, butt the other against one of the other sides of the first and then slide the first to the mark you want. It will always be nicely parallel then.

[john_tullamarine]

The most accurate way I found to do this is to use two set squares rather than a ruler

Might be useful in the exam but a bit impractical in the field.

[AerocatS2A]

It's not something I've ever had to do in the field.