ATPL theory questions

[keith williams]

I will do this in stages to enable you to learn to do it for yourself.

Aspect ratio = Span / Chord

If we multiply top and bottom by span we get

Aspect ratio = (Span x Span) / ( Chord x Span)

But Chord x Span is area so we have

Aspect ratio = Span squared / Area

Multiplying both sides by area gives us

Aspect ratio x Area = Span squared

Square rooting both sides gives us

Square root of ( Aspect ratio x Area) = Span

Inserting your numbers gives

Square root of (7.5 x 845) = Span = 79.6

[Flyboy_Josh]

What's up guys. Came across this question and it stumped me.

Which of these increases Mcrit:

A) decrease wing area
B) decrease sweep back
C) increase load factor
D) aft movement of CG

Narrowed down to A and D but can't differentiate.
I know if you decrease airfoil thickness Mcrit increases but A doesn't really suggest thickness. Aft CG movement make sense as less work required by wing to compensate for downforce produced by the horizontal tail

Thanks in advance :)

[keith williams]

Mcrit is the lowest free stream mach number at which we get sonic (Mach 1) airflow at any point on the surface of the aircraft. For the purposes of this type of question the examiners usually we assume that this will occur over the wings.

This means that Mcrit = Mach 1 minus the airflow acceleration over the wings.

So
Anything that increases this acceleration will decrease Mcrit
Anything that decreases this acceleration will increase Mcrit.

If we decrease wing area while keeping aircraft weight unchanged, then each square foot of wing will need to produce more lift. This will require a greater angle of attack, which will increase acceleration over the wing. This means that airspeed over the wing will be closer to Mach 1 so Mcrit will be reduced. So option A is incorrect.

The wings must produce sufficient lift to carry the weight of the aircraft plus any downward force from the tail plane. If we move the CG aft we need less tail plane down force, so we need less lift. This enables us to use a lower angle of attack, so Mcrit is increased. Option d is the correct answer.

[Straighten Up]

What is the effect on the aeroplane's static longitudinal stability of a shift of the centre of gravity to a more aft location and on the required control deflection for a certain pitch up or down?

I put: The static longitudinal stability is smaller and the required control deflection is larger.

Correct Answer: The static longitudinal stability is smaller and the required control deflection is smaller.

My thinking was that as the CG is aft, the arm between elevator and CG is smaller therefore a greater deflection would be required for the same movement. Now I'm thinking that it depends if you want to pitch up or down. Pitching up with aft CG would be easier than pitching down???

[hvogt]

My thinking was that as the CG is aft, the arm between elevator and CG is smallerYes, but at the same time the distance from the CG to the neutral point decreases. Try to imagine a fat man and a child sitting on a balanced see-saw. If the man moves closer to the pivot point, the child must produce less downward force to keep the see-saw balanced.

[Straighten Up]

Try to imagine a fat man and a child sitting on a balanced see-saw. If the man moves closer to the pivot point, the child must produce less downward force to keep the see-saw balanced.

I still can't get my head around this - I accept what you say about the see-saw but in that example surely the fat man is the elevator and would have to provide a bigger downforce? Your analogy makes the child the elevator, but if the CG is moving aft towards the elevator it's closer to the fat man.........???

Still struggling to visualise it.

[hvogt]

The analogy with the see-saw was probably imperfect. I shouldn't have posted it. This explanation by Genghis is certainly much better:

CG is quite close to, but in front of, the centre of lift. Moving CG aft moves it closer to the centre of lift, so that the tailplane has to do less work to match the pitching moment effects of CG and CofL not being in the same place.

So, it becomes more effective, since any elevator movement will be more powerful in terms of pitch response.

[Ahmedsalo]

The application of a type II anti-icing fluid on an aircraft on the
ground will provide a:

1-protection time up to 24 hours
2-limited time of protection,dependent on the outside temp,precipitation and fluid
3-limited time of protection independent of the outside temp
4-protection against icing for the duration of the flight

[paco]

You can discard a and d for a start :) because the fluid is only meant to get you off the ground - in fact Type II (being thicker) should blow off before you get airborne as it will screw with the lifting capabilities of the wing. Its concentration counts, so b is the least worst answer.

[Alex Whittingham]

To expand on Paco's answer, de-icing fluids are only meant to be effective on the ground and are required to blow off the airframe usually by 100KT, airborne protection comes from the aircraft's own anti-icing and de-icing systems. There are published (http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/media/FAA_2013-14_Holdover_Tables.pdf) tables of holdover times which show how long the fluid can be expected to be effective while the aircraft is parked or taxying. If you look at them you will see that the paramaters that affect holdover time include OAT, precipitation type and intensity and fluid concentration.

[squall1984]

Hey guys.
Probably a stupid question but how long are the ATPLs valid for? I finished mine in September 2013 and still debating on if I should complete my conversion.

[zondaracer]

Squall, unless it has changed, you hve 36 months to get an instrument rating or ATPL.

[Straighten Up]

The effect of a high wing with zero dihedral is as follows:

Zero dihedral effect
Positive dihedral effect
Negative dihedral effect
Its only purpose is to ease aeroplane loading

I went with zero dihedral effect (despite it looking a bit obvious), however correct answer given is positive dihedral effect. I'm keen to understand the theory behind this.

[Straighten Up]

And just for good measure, this one

When the lift coefficient Cl of a negatively cambered aerofoil section is zero, the pitching moment is:

maximum.
nose down (negative).
nose up (positive).
zero.

I went with zero, given answer is nose up. My thinking is that if Cl is 0, then following the lift formula IAS2*S*Cl, will give an answer of 0 for lift, so how can a moment be generated when there is 0 lift?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Live your dream]

High wing itself provides a positive effect due to a balancing moment. A negative camber at zero lift provides a nose up moment.

[keith williams]

The effect of a high wing with zero dihedral is as follows:

Zero dihedral effect
Positive dihedral effect
Negative dihedral effect
Its only purpose is to ease aeroplane loading


The term “dihedral effect” means lateral stability, which is the tendency to roll away from sideslip.

If a disturbance causes an aircraft to drop a wing (roll to one side) it will sideslip towards the dropped wing. This will cause the airflow to approach the fuselage from the dropped wing side. When the air meets the fuselage it will split into two parts with some flowing over the top of the fuselage and some flowing under the bottom. The two parcels of air will then flow back together after passing over/under the fuselage.

For a high wing aircraft (with shoulder-mounted wings) the air which flows over the top of the fuselage is moving upwards when it meets the dropped wing, then downwards when it meets the raised wing. This increases the angle of attack of the dropped wing and decreases the angle of attack of the raised wing. So the dropped wing produces more lift and the raised wing produces less lift. This causes the aircraft to roll away from the sideslip and back towards the wings level condition.

So the answer to this question is “Positive dihedral effect”.



When the lift coefficient Cl of a negatively cambered aerofoil section is zero, the pitching moment is:

maximum.
nose down (negative).
nose up (positive).
zero.

When a cambered aerofoil is set at zero degrees angle of attack it will produce some lift. In order to get it to produce zero lift it must be set at a slightly nose down angle. In this condition the upward lift force produced by the upper surface is equal to the downward lift force produced by the lower surface. So the two cancel out to give zero lift. But the pressure distributions of the upper and lower surface are not identical. The Centre of Pressure of the upper surface is further aft than that of the lower surface. So the upward lift of the upper surface is further aft than that of the lower surface. So these two forces produce a nose down pitching moment.


A “negatively cambered aerofoil” is one in which the greatest curvature is on the bottom surface. (Just imagine a standard aerofoil placed upside down).

So to get zero lift we must set it at a slightly nose up angle. In this condition the upward lift force and the downward lift force are again equal, so there is no overall lift. But the upward lift on the upper surface is now ahead of that on the lower surface, so they produce a nose-down pitching moment.

All of this should be clearly illustrated in your course notes.

[Straighten Up]

Me again. This is making me tear my non-existent hair out

During an ILS approach on RWY 33, a northwesterly wind is blowing parallel to the runway. Its speed is increasing rapidly with height while its change in direction is negligible. What has the pilot to be aware of with respect to wind shear and glide path (no autopilot engaged)?

1. Without the pilot's intervention, the aircraft is likely to fly above the designated glide path with decreasing deviation from it.
2. Without the pilot's intervention, the aircraft is likely to fly above the designated glide path with increasing deviation from it.
3. Without the pilot's intervention, the aircraft is likely to fly below the designated glide path with increasing deviation from it.
4 .A deviation from the glide path will not have to be considered since there is no significant wind shear to be expected.

I chose 2, correct is given as 3. My reason being with a constant power setting applied and no a/p, as the wind decreases, speed over the ground will increase, so you will travel further forward for the same drop in height meaning you will overshoot.

I also considered reduction in lift due to reduction in IAS, but surely with a constant power setting, this wouldn't be the case as the IAS would increase with less wind??

[keith williams]

The various versions of the ATPL CQB have for a number of years included two questions of this type. One uses the term “wind speed increasing rapidly with height” and the other uses the term “wind speed decreasing rapidly with height”.

The answer we will come to for each of these questions depends upon how we interpret these statements.

If the term “wind speed increasing rapidly with height” means that the wind speed increases as the height above the ground increases, then the correct answer is that the descending aircraft will fly into a decreasing wind, which will cause its ground speed to increase. This increased ground speed (with a constant rate of descent) will cause it to fly above the glide slope with increasing deviation. But this is not the answer that has been selected as being correct by the examiners.

If the term “wind speed increasing rapidly with height” means that the wind speed increases as the height above the ground decreases, then the correct answer is that the descending aircraft will fly into an increasing wind, which will cause its ground speed to decrease. This decreased ground speed (with a constant rate of descent) will cause it to fly below the glide slope with increasing deviation. But again, this is not the answer that has been selected as being correct by the authors of the question.

In both questions, the examiners have selected answers that appear to be based on a different interpretation of the terms “wind speed increases rapidly with height” and “wind speed decreases rapidly with height”. To understand how the examiners came up with these answers we must set aside the obvious conclusion that they are just plain stupid, and try to deduce what interpretation they are using.

Their answers to these questions suggest to me that the terms used should have been something like “wind speed increases rapidly with decreasing height” and “wind speed decreases rapidly with decreasing height”. If the rate of change of wind speed is sufficiently great, this second condition (wind speed decreasing rapidly with decreasing height) would be a case of vertical wind shear. In the first case we would fly below the glide path and in the second case we would fly above it.

[teddz]

I have found a question in the comms exam which i can't seem to find an answer for. If anyone could help or knows the answer.

The question as far as i remember it was: " When contacting a station and not getting a reply, how long do you have to wait until you could contact again?
a. 10 seconds
b. 30 seconds
c. 1minute
d. 2minutes
e. wait until they will reply "

[cumbrianboy]

at least 10 seconds

[hvogt]

I used to think it was 30 seconds, but according to ICAO Annex 10, Volume 2, Chapter 5, 10 seconds is correct:5.1.5 Recommendation.—After a call has been made to the aeronautical station, a period of at least 10 seconds should elapse before a second call is made. This should eliminate unnecessary transmissions while the aeronautical station is getting ready to reply to the initial call.
Interestingly, this only applies to calling aeronautical stations, not aircraft stations.

[teddz]

I was guessing 30 seconds, but then i counted 10 seconds and realized this seems as an eternity when it comes to quick decisions. Thanks for the info. :D

Now since we're at this topic, you know what's the difference when it comes to a ground aeronautical station? (since you mentioned it :p)

[hvogt]

Sorry, I just realise I confused the terms 'aeronautical station', which - in ICAO terminology - means ground station, and 'aircraft station'. The respective definitions, as given in ICAO Annex 10, Volume 2, Chapter 1, are:
Aeronautical station [...] A land station in the aeronautical mobile service. In certain instances, an aeronautical station may be located, for example, on board ship or on a platform at sea.

Aircraft station [...] A mobile station in the aeronautical mobile service, other than a survival craft station, located on board an aircraft.

[Gallinazo]

Hello. Sorry for the disturbance, people...

This question on the FAA ATPL written examination study guide;

Which approach control frequency is indicated for the TNP.DOWNE3 Arrival with LAX as the destination?

128.5 MHz
124.9 MHz
124.5 MHz
I look into the A/FD excerpt and see the following under COMMUNICATIONS;

APP CON: 128.5 (045º - 089º), 124.9 (090º - 224º), 124.5 (225º - 044º)

I would have said, based on the arrival, that you are inbound on radial 068 of LAX VOR, therefore the answer should be 128.5 MHz (between LAX radials 045 - 089). The guide says the answer is 124.5 MHz.

Some background now, please, before I get pitched into about not understanding the A/FD. I am not familiar with the A/FD format, really, and am preparing for the exam based on a company requirement (I work for a South American based airline). On what premise is the provided answer the correct one???

Thanks!

[OhNoCB]

I'm not familiar with this format. I haven't come across anything similar in my relatively limited European experience.

To hazard a guess, if the A/FD excerpt is referring to your inbound track as opposed to what radial you're on (like the MSA is stylized on jepp plates) then if you are inbound on radial 068, your course or nil wind track would be 248 which lies between 225 and 044, thus giving 124.5.

[Gallinazo]

Okay, thanks. I imagine that must be it. It is weird, though. I have looked for "guides" to interpreting the A/FD online, but cannot find anything.

[Gallinazo]

Argh! Sorry guys,

I did not initially notice that there was a sticky thread for exactly my sort of query, for which I posted a separate thread in this section of the forum. For the record, here's a link to it;

A/FD Question (http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/543036-airport-facility-directory-question.html)

And if anyone can further offer any explanation, I would be most appreciative, thank you.

[Ahmedsalo]

the drag coefficient at constant angle of attack

A:starts to increase rapidly above Mcrit
B:starts to decrease rapidly above the drag divergence mach number
C:increases only when Mcrit is above unity
D:starts to increase rapidly above the drag divergence Mach number

[keith williams]

If you do a google search for "Drag Divergence Mach Number" you will find lots of material including diagrams on this subject.

The WIKIPEDIA entry starts with the following text:

The drag divergence Mach number (not to be confused with critical Mach number) is the Mach number at which the aerodynamic drag on an airfoil or airframe begins to increase rapidly as the Mach number continues to increase.[1] This increase can cause the drag coefficient to rise to more than ten times its low speed value.

[Transsonic2000]

Hi all,

I'd need some help with the following question:

Departure A (25°N 175°W) on 7 January at 1423 LMT. Difference UTC and ST(a) is 11 hr.
Destination B (15°N 155°E). Difference UTC and ST(b) is 10 hr.
Distance along the great circle between A and B is 1790 NM. Average head wind is 19 kt, average TAS 400 kt. Calculate time (standard) and date of arrival at B.

So, I came up with 16:05 (8 Jan) but according to the QDB the correct answer is 16:45 (8 Jan)

Here are my steps how I came up with my answer:


Trip time = Distance / Ground Speed = 1790 NM / 381 = 4 hr 42 min
Convert from LMT to UTC (departure airport) 1423 + 11 = 01:23 (8 Jan)
from UTC to LMT (destination) 01:23 + 10 = 11:23
add trip time: 11:23 + 4:42 = 16:05 (8 Jan)

Many thanks in advance!

[Alex Whittingham]

Hi transsonic,

Unfortunately you are confusing LMT and Standard time. The departure time is given in LMT, to convert to UT use the arc to time tables. Thus your step 2 onwards should be:

2. Convert from LMT to UTC (departure airport) 1423 + 11:40 = 02:03 (8 Jan)
3. from UTC to ST (destination) 02:03 + 10 = 12:03
4. add trip time: 12:03 + 4:42 = 16:45 (8 Jan)

[Transsonic2000]

Hi Alex,

thank you very much! I see, I should have divided 175°W by 15°/hr which gives me 11 hr 40 min! I was a bite confused because the answer I came up with initially (16:05) wasn't even listed among the possible answers given by this question.

[Transsonic2000]

Hi there,

it's me again. I'd need some help with the following question, no clue how to get this figured out.

AT 0020 UTC aircraft is crossing the 310° radial at 40 NM of a VOR/DME.
AT 0035 UTC the radial is 040° and DME distance is 40NM.
Magnetic Variation is zero. What is the true track and ground speed?

correct answer would be 085° - 226 kts


Many thanks in advance!

[RVR400]

Using my very basic VOR Distance/Time formulas, I managed to get as close as possible to the "Correct Answer" you provided.

First we can conclude that the Aircraft has flown from NW to NE and as it has flown across 90 degrees of Radials (310-040), we can say the aircraft was almost perfectly flying East (090). Its a perfect Isosceles triangle.

First Example: We understand from IFR ground school that a scale of 1 dot is = 200 feet when 1 nm from the station. So 1 degree at 1 nm = 100 feet.
At 40nm 1 degree would be 4000 feet (40nmX100feet).
The airplane flew through 90 Degrees of Radials so 90X4000 = 360,000 feet.
1nm = 6076 feet. Therefore, the Distance flown from the 310 radial to the 040 is 59.24nm(360,000/6076).
Now we can say that in 15 mins (0020-0035) the airplane covered a distance of 59.24nm. The aircraft must be traveling at 236 knots.

Second Example:

60 x minutes flown between
bearing change
Time to station = ----------------------------------
degrees of bearing change

X = 60 x 15
--------
90
X is 10 minutes: Therefore the aircraft will cover 40nm to the station in 10 minutes. This gives a speed of 240 knots

TAS x minutes flown
Distance to station = ------------------------------
degrees of bearing change

Now 240knots x 15
-----------------
90
= 40nm from station.

I guess I can rest my case to say :D:D:D problems solved. At least to the nearest "Correct Answer".

[RichardH]

It's all about the properties of isosceles triangles, angles & Pythagoras. However the easiest way is to draw a SCALE diagram - answer then will leap out at you.

[Transsonic2000]

Many thanks for your help, especially RVR400, it's very much appreciated!

This is one of these absurd questions the QDB contains. Personally I doubt that one (I) will recall all the steps involved to come up with the right (close) answer on exam day, it's probably just recognizing the question and hopefully the correct answer, if one is lucky.

Once again, many thanks for your explanations :ok:

[Piltdown Man]

Trans - first sketch the problem. You have been given some good stuff to start. Two radials, two DME fixes and 15 minutes (or 1/4 of an hour). First the track. Half way, you will be crossing the 355 radial at 90 degrees, so add the two to get 085. Now the distance. Again, at the halfway point, you will be on the 355 radial, having flown from the 310 radial. You have covered 45 degrees. So Cos 40 (0.7071) x 40 = 28.28 x 2 (you are halfway) = 56.57 nm x 4 ( is was a quarter of an hour) = 226 Kts.

[Transsonic2000]

Many thanks PM, it's very much appreciated!

[Transsonic2000]

I'd need some help with the following question:

Aircraft is flying at FL 350 with Mach 0.878 OAT = ISA + 4°C. Compressibility Factor is 0.939. Calculate TAS.

Correct answer would be 510 kts.


Her are my steps, but my result doesn't even come close to the answer given.


determine OAT at FL 350 = - 51°C
calculate LSS = 0.878 (Mach) x 38.9 (square route out of) 222 = 508 kts
508 kts x 0.939 (C. Factor) = 478 TAS

[RichardH]

510 kts is correct.

You do not have to account for compressibility errors for Mach Nos.

The Machmeter only has instrument & pressure errors not compressibility, whereas the ASI has instrument, pressure, compressibility & density errors.

[Transsonic2000]

Hi Richard,

thank you very much for your explanation, it's very much appreciated! Good to know that step 3. is not necessary, really gave me some headache.

[Bumpy_CZE]

Hello,

this question is found in the Principles of Flight questions in the exams:

Two identical aeroplanes A and B, with the same mass, are flying steady level co-ordinated 20 degree bank turns. If the TAS of A is 130 kt and the TAS of B is 200 kt:

Possible answers:

the turn radius of A is greater than that of B.
the load factor of A is greater than that of B.
the rate of turn of A is greater that of B. (correct)
the lift coefficient of A is less thant that of B.

Is it, just theoretically, possible, that the last question could be also correct, since the question doesn´t state anything about same aircraft configuration (flaps/spoilers) or same air density?

[katismo]

Find the airfield pressure height given:
Elevation 397ft
QNH 1023 hpa
OAT +22 C

answers
A) 97ft
B) 397 ft
C) 127 ft
D) 291 Ft


...and they saying that right answer will be C) 127 ft.

Just how? If someone could put me on the track with this. My guess is 97ft.

:*

[PlanetEarth]

They used 27' per millibar instead of 30 I guess?

[keith williams]

Two identical aeroplanes A and B, with the same mass, are flying steady level co-ordinated 20 degree bank turns. If the TAS of A is 130 kt and the TAS of B is 200 kt:

Possible answers:

the turn radius of A is greater than that of B.
the load factor of A is greater than that of B.
the rate of turn of A is greater that of B. (correct)
the lift coefficient of A is less thant that of B.

Is it, just theoretically, possible, that the last question could be also correct, since the question doesn´t state anything about same aircraft configuration (flaps/spoilers) or same air density?

Identical aeroplanes with same mass and same AOB suggests that they are both producing the same amount of lift.

Lift = CL 1/2Rho TAS squared

Aircraft A is flying at a lower TAS, so to generate the same lift as aircraft B with the same air density it would require a greater CL. This is not an option in the question.

It would be possible for aircraft A to generate the same lift with a lower CL than aircraft B, but to achieve this it would need a value of Rho that was greater than that for aircraft B. Nothing in the questions suggests that this is the case, so option D is unlikely to be the correct answer. You would be unwise to select this option in the exam.

But there is certainly enough information to indicate that option C is the correct answer.

[katismo]

Da-a,

and in those expensive JAA ATPL books they teaching use 30ft per millibar. So why there is a choice 97ft which you will get when use 30ft / millibar.

Go figure!

[PlanetEarth]

Yea. I've seen in many questions that they actually state "use 30 feet per millibar" or "use 27 feet per millibar". To have two answers that are correct for each of these is a bit evil imo. I guess 27 is the more correct answer, but it depends on where you are in the atmosphere.

96 x (absolute temperature (273K + actual temperature) / altitude pressure (millibars))

So at sea level in ISA conditions that's 27.3 feet.

So if you have the choice, and it's correct to use 27 feet, I guess that would be the "more correct" answer (at low levels). At 18,000 feet it's closer to 50 feet per millibar


Someone correct me if I'm wrong

[paco]

Unless otherwise specified, we teach 27 feet for Met, 30 feet for everything else

[Straighten Up]

Don't forget you can now comment on ATPL questions. I recently had one of mine upgraded presumably after they read one oft comments on it. So if you put in that your answer is based on 30 or 27 then you may find they credit it regardless.

[paco]

And the charge is £69 for the privilege.....

[Straighten Up]

If a "wind component is +40kt" would this refer to a headwind or tailwind, the question doesnt specify.

I've assumed tailwind as your GS would increase in this case.

[keith williams]

In Navigation headwinds have a negative effect because they decrease the ground speed and this decreases the ground distance.

In Aircraft Performance (particularly take-off and landing performance) headwinds have a positive effect because they decrease the ground speed, which decreases the ground distances required.

It would help if we knew the whole question.

[Straighten Up]

Thanks Keith. It's a nav question (flight planning)

Ref CAP697 MEP 3.6

Cruise PA 18000ft OAT +5
Airfield PA 4000ft OAT +20
Wind component in descent +40kt

What are the fuel, time and distance (NGM)

I got fuel 8-2 = 6USG, time 19-4 = 15mins, distance 52-11 + 15/60*40 = 51NGM

i.e. cover more distance in same time due to tailwind.

[RichardH]

I agree with your figures.

Worth noting that the exams are no longer giving you reference numbers e.g. 3.6. You are expected with the information in the question and a bit of ingenuity get the correct graph/table. Watch out on MRJT.

[biggi]

I believe the qb has been updated today. Can anyone else back up the statement?

[P40Warhawk]

Since they update very regularly, it is extremely important to study also the books very well. That saved me while I was doing my ATPL Theory exams.

Just clicking through the questions will not help you. It is just a tool to practice your knowledge.

When I did my exams, they were also updating many subjects. Seen many questions I ve never seen before in QB. But my book knowledge made me passing first attempts. Never failed any of them.

[biggi]

Good for you, good for you! :D

I read the books AND study using the QB, as it is there as an available tool for us.

I just discovered that it was quite a big change in the total of questions in it (atp), so i figured someone else using bristol ground school would see it as well.

[Straighten Up]

I'm working through a ProPilot workbook so I can't check my answer to this (as they aren't provided) but just wanted to check I'm going about it the right way

The total length of the 53N parallel of latitude on a direct Mercator chart is 133cm. What is the approximate scale of the chart at latitude 30S.

My working:

Circumference of earth at 53N = Pi(12732*cos53) = 7662km
Scale at 53N = 1 over 766,200,000/133 = 1/5,760,902
Scale at 30S = cos30/cos53 * 5,760,902 = 1/8,229,860

Can anyone confirm if I've done this correctly?

Thanks.

[RichardH]

Might be best to approach your FTO directly, you are on the right lines but this should help. This JAA exam question was asked years ago and does cause some problems - you are not alone.

Scale is Earth Distance(ED) / Chart Length(CL) (as a ratio) saves all this 1 over rubbish. You must work in the same units Km/cm NOT Nm & cm.

Next thing is to spot it's a Mercator question so the 133cm CL applies at ALL latitudes so you can dismiss the 53N bit and go straight for ED at 30s. This brings in "departure". Dept (NM) = Ch long (mins) x cos lat.

So 360 * 60 * cos 30 = 18706 nm, however CL is in cm so convert 18706 into km by * 1.852 = 34643.512 km (worth remembering 100,000 cm in km) so * by 100,000 = 3464351200 then divide by the CL of 133 gives answer of 26,047,753.

The original exam answer was 1:25,000,000 which is close enough.

NB. Several questions on scale where you have to find ED by departure before you can do anything else.

[Cubaddict]

Good evening to you all !

Could any of you enlight me as to why a swept wing aircraft would be more speed instable than a classic straight winged ?

Thanks for your help :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

All else being equal, almost certainly down to a shallower logitudinal static stability curve around the operating AoA range.

[Cubaddict]

Found this question in a book and not very satisfied with the answer:

What is the best CofG position with a stuck stabilizer, and why ?

What are your thoughts ?

Thanks :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depends upon the control system of the aeroplane.

[keith williams]

Looking at your location and your statement that "Found this question in a book " I suspect that you are undergoing flight training of some kind, possibly with OATS (or whatever they are called now). I could of course be wrong but that is the basis of my answer to your question.

What is the best CofG position with a stuck stabilizer, and why ?

The answer depends on what your flight condition was at the time the stabilizer became stuck.

In cruise flight for example, the aircraft would be trimmed for a low pitch attitude / angle of attack and gear and flaps up. In order to land you would need to extend the gear and flaps and assume a higher angle of attack / pitch as you decelerated the aircraft to landing speed. These actions would generate a nose down pitching moment, which would normally be countered by adjusting the stabilizer trim.

The stabilizer stuck in cruise position would not only prevent you from trimming out the pitch-down moments, it would actually increase them. A forward C of G position would make the problem even worse. So an aft C if G would be the most favourable in this scenario.

The ATPL CQB contains (or did for many years) a question concerning how best to achieve a landing with the stabilizer stuck in the cruise position. The best answer was a combination of aft CG, not much flap, and higher than usual landing speed.

[keith williams]

If your question is for the purpose of ATPL theory study then you need to consider the gradient of the drag curve.

If the drag curve gradient is very steep then a small change in speed will result in a large change in drag. At speeds below Vmd this would make the aircraft more speed unstable. But at speeds above Vmd it would make the aircraft more speed stable.

Swept wing aircraft tend to low coefficients of drag, which gives them shallower drag curves compared to straight winged aircraft. This reduces the speed instability below Vmd. But it makes it harder to maintain a given speed at or above Vmd and this might be interpreted as an increased speed instability.

[spencer341]

Hi would anyone be able to help me with this question that our whole class are confused about?

A ground feature was observed on a relative bearing of 325° and five minutes later on a relative bearing of 280°. The aircraft heading was 165°(M), variation 25°W, drift 10°Right and GS 360 kt. When the relative bearing was 280°, the distance and true bearing of the aircraft from the feature was:
A. 30 NM and 240°
B. 40 NM and 110°
C. 40 NM and 290°
D. 30 NM and 060°

The correct answer is A but were unsure how you get the answer.

[petek]

Can't believe the whole class are confused.
Classic RTFQ/RTFA question.
You can spend 15 to 20 minutes drawing it all out or
Hdg 165(M) - Var 25(W) = 140(T) + RB 280 = 420-360 = 060 from a/c to feature which means 240(T) from feature to a/c so the answer must be (A).
You do not need to calculate the distance as the bearings are all different.
Don't forget that in your exam NO question should take more than 3 minutes, so look for clues in the question/answers

[RichardH]

Probably best to post this in the ATPL questions thread - however.

Strongly recommend drawing a diagram to aid your answer however the key to the question is the 45 degree change in RB as this must mean it forms an isosceles triangle (ist)

Dist along track = 360 * 5 mins = 30 nm and due to the (ist) is also the distance from the feature.

True bearing from feature - first get everything into true and it's HEADING that matters (unless you are drawing a diagram then track is relevant also) so Hdg(T) = 165 -25 = 140(T) + the final RB of 280 = 420 - 360 = 060 true bearing of feature from a/c + 180 = 240 true bearing from feature.

So in real plotting you would draw a line 240 from feature and arc 30 miles gives you your position.

NB lots of questions like this around just look for the 45 RB difference - simples.

[Transsonic2000]

Hi all,

I'm currently working on Flight Planning & Monitoring (Chapter: Practical Completion of Flight Plan; subpart: Completion of fuel plan) and came across a few sneaky question where there is no reference to the respective Figure (to be used) given. Here are a few examples.


1. (For this question use Fuel Planning MRJT1)
The airplane gross mass at top of climb (TOC) is 61.500 kg. Distance to be flow is 385 NM at FL 350 and OAT -54.3°C. The wind component is 40 kt tailwind. Use long range cruise procedure what fuel is required? 2.150 kg


2. (Information given: use Route Manual chart E(HI)4)
Flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle (N49 00.9 E002 36.9) to London Heathrow (N51 29.2 W 000 27.9) (twin jet). The alternate is Manchester (N53 21.4 W002 15.7).
Preplanning:
Wind from London to Manchester 250°/30 kt
Distance from London to Manchester 160 NM
Estimated landing mass at alternate about 50.000 kg
Find alternate fuel and time: 1.450 kg and 32 min


How do I know which chart/Figure(s) to use to come up with the answer? And how do I work it out?

Any advise greatly appreciated!

[RichardH]

Advice is - perfectly okay questions and these days it is normal not to mention the figure directly BUT there is enough information in the question to lead you to the appropriate page in CAP697 or appendix.

Q1 says LRC procedures at FL350 gives you MRJT page 33. If you don't know the method this is explained on page 24. However briefly, ISA so TAS 429 kt. Then convert the 385 NGM into 352 NAM (as tables work in air miles). TOC mass of 61500 gives an air distance of 5313 nam - 352 = 4961 nam. Enter table looking for 4961 (lies about half way between 4954 & 4971 with equates to 59350 kg. 61500 - 59350 = 2150 kg (no further corrections needed).

Q2 mentions ALTERNATE there is only one Alternate Planning graph for MRJT on P16. So it's London to sunny Manchester all details given except track which if you measure it on EHI4 is 330(T). Now work the WC, quickest and easiest in this case use CRP5 square section and you will get a 5 kt headwind.
Now use Alternate Planning graph as shown in example with a 50,000 kg LM and you should get 1450 kg & 32 mins.

Hope that helps but should be explained in your FTOs course material.

[Transsonic2000]

Richard, many thanks for your respond so far! I will take a look at this tomorrow (I'll hit the sack now) and if I need any further explanation I'll let you know. Once again thanks a lot!

PS. Just went over the questions again and worked them out, it's all clear now, I came up with the correct results (thanks to your explanation)! I must confess, Flight Planning is the subject I neglected most, but since exam time is coming up, I better spent some time going over the charts now, instead of having to retake the subject (which hopefully won't be the case) and I must say with some practice it isn't that hard and you know what charts you have to look up, at least most of the time.

[Transsonic2000]

Hello,

would need some help with the following question:

Given: maximum allowable take-off mass 64.400 kg, maximum landing mass 56.200 kg, Maximum zero fuel mass 53.000 kg.
Dry operating mass 35.500 kg, Traffic load 14.500 kg, Trip fuel 4.900 kg, Minimum take-off fuel 7.400 kg.
Find maximum allowable take-off fuel:
a) 11.400 kg
b) 14.400 kg
c) 11.100 kg (this is the correct answer according to the QDB)
d) 8.600 kg

Here is how I calculated it:
since the question is asking for the max allowable T/O fuel I simply subtracted Max. ZFM 53.000 kg from Max. allowable TOM 64.400 kg and came up with 11.400 kg but apparently this is not correct. What's my mistake or what did I miss?

[Superpilot]

You are using the Max ZFW instead of Actual ZFW.

Maximum fuel allowed is the lowest of:

A.) Max TOW - Actual ZFW
B.) Max LW - Actual ZFW + Trip fuel
C.) Max Fuel Capacity

Actual ZFW = DOW (or DOM) + Traffic Load
= 35.5 + 14.5
= 50

Putting it all back into the above formula you'll find B.) gives you the lowest answer. E.g. 56.2 - 50 + 4.9 = 11.1 tonnes or 11,100 kg.

Thanks for asking that, I had to open up the books :O

[Stn120]

When working out the 3 Regulated Take-Off Masses
MTOM = RTOM 1
MLM + Trip Fuel = RTOM 2
MZFM + TOF (Which you don't know the TOF in this problem). = RTOM 3
(Lowest of the 3)


Therefore RTOM 2


- Dom
- Traffic Load


= Max Allowable Fuel Load


56200+ 4900 = 61100


- 35500 = 25600
- 14500 = 11100 Max fuel allowable to be able to land at MLM

[Transsonic2000]

Many thanks for your explanations (superpilot & Stn120) it's very much appreciated!

[shinigami]

i do have a little question about mechanics of atpl exams, if you guys do not mind. i got caps for performance and flight planning from a friend who entered atpl exams in irish authority. especially in performance the first 3-4 pages contain, conversions between units, definitions, some formulas and wet,dry,grass etc. runway coefficients. i'll have my exams in polish caa, are they going to give the complete cap 698 or just the graphs? i am wondering because in aviationexam performance sections, explanations seems like we have to know the wet,dry,grass etc. coefficients by memory. thanks.

[keith williams]

For a definitive answer you must address your question to the Polish CAA.

The UK CAA have in the past permitted candidates to have a complete copy of the CAPs 696, 697 and 698 for the relevant exams. This reduced the amount of material that student were required to memorize. I believe that candidates in other countries have had only the relevant annexes (graphs, tables and diagrams).

In future UK CAA exam candidates will not be permitted to have the full CAPs. I believe that this change takes effect with the next set of exams (January 2015). I have heard that candidates booked for these exams have been given outdated instructions which state that full CAPs will be provided. The best advice would be for all candidates to memorize as much material from the CAPs as possible, until the picture becomes clearer after the next few sets of exams.

[Alex Whittingham]

For the UK the CAA have said "Students sitting exams that previously required CAPs will be given workbooks which contain straight copies of the graphs from the CAPs required to answer questions, if any additional information is needed, then it will be contained in the question. Conversion formulas and factorisation requirements for grass, paved, wet or dry surfaces and slope will need to be memorised." It is not immediately clear to me whether this is with effect from January or February, I will try to confirm the effective date as soon as I can, unless anyone else knows for sure.

[paco]

1 Jan I believe

[shinigami]

thank you all for the information, i really appreciate it. if it is not too much to ask, is it same with the jeppesen manual especially in flight planning. can we keep the whole manual (because there are lots of information) or just the charts and plates? thanks.

[paco]

Actually, the phrase used was "until January 2015" for the use of the CAPs so to play safe, regard them as not being available for the January exams, as we don't know whether Jan is included.

The Jep is staying for the foreseeable future, in UK at least. I believe Spain has the Jep stuff in the exams questions, as required.

[captain.weird]

Guys, a quick question. The ones who are going to start with the ATPL theory in 2015, will the QB be outdated? Because I've read a lot of things that make me a little bit nervous.

[paco]

Why do you want to use the QB? If for revision and practice, there should be no problem if you keep your mind flexible. If you want to learn the answers, definitely a problem. More questions being written right now.

[shinigami]

i belive they add new questions every year and even every month. so the question banks are not %100 accurate.

but what i belive captain.weird asked, is something different with year 2015 rather than the usual updates on the questions. am i right?

[SkillsToBurn]

Hi all, im on my last set of ground school exams and having problems with the following questions:-

The QNH at an airfield located 200 metres above sea level is 1009 hPa. The air temperature is 10°C lower than a standard atmosphere. What is the QFF?

A) More than 1009

B) Less than 1009

C) 1009

D) It is not possible to give a definitive answer


The QNH at an airfield located 200 metres above sea level is 1022 hPa. The air temperature is not available. What is the QFF?



A )It is not possible to give a definitive answer


B) More than 1022 hPa


C) Less than 1022 hPa


D) 1022 hPa

The QNH at an airfield in California located 69 meters below sea level is 1018 hPa. The air temperature is 10°C higher than a standard atmosphere. What is the QFF?

A) 1018 hPa




B) Less than 1018 hPa C) More than 1018 hPa




D) It is not possible to give a definitive answer


The QFF at an airfield located 400 metres above sea level is 1016 hPa. The air temperature is 10°C higher than a standard atmosphere. What is the QNH?

A) It is not possible to give a definitive answer



B) Less than 1016 hPa




C) More than 1016 hPa




D) 1016 hPa

If someone could please shed some light on theses questions it would be much appreciated as I cant seem to get my head around them!

[helimutt]

Answers courtesy of the great guys at BGS

If the temp = ISA conditions
QNH = QFF

If above MSL
If the temp > ISA then QNH > QFF
If the temp < ISA then QNH < QFF

If below MSL then this is reversed:
If the temp > ISA then QNH < QFF
If the temp < ISA then QNH > QFF


and
In ISA conditions QNH = QFF; the setting which gives airfield elevation at touchdown (QNH) = the atospheric pressure at sea level (QFF). If it is warmer than ISA the theoretical column of air between the airfield and sea level would expand and the QNH would occur below sea level which means that QNH would be greater than QFF. Similarly, if it is colder the ISA the column of air would contract and the QNH would be less than QFF.


and
QFF and QFE problems are all linked to the fact that in colder denser air pressure changes more rapidly as you go up or down.

Imagine you are on an airfield at 1000ft elevation and at 1000mb and you want to calculate the pressure at msl. In round figures for ISA conditions, at 30ft/mb you would make it 33.3mb higher at 1033.3mb. This is your QNH.

If the air is colder than ISA you get more rapid pressure changes, and we?ll use 20ft/mb for convenience. Now, using ambient temperature and this ?real? lapse rate we calculate the pressure at msl and it comes out at 50mb higher at 1050mb This is your QFF.

Now QFF is our best guess of the actual pressure at msl, but QNH is a lower pressure and zero on the altimeter with QNH set will leave you well above msl. So, in cold conditions QFF is a higher pressure setting than QNH but the QNH pressure level is at a higher altitude. As an aside, this means you can safely fly down to zero indicated altitude with QNH set and not hit the sea.

If you look at this upside down, from an airfield below msl it means that now QFF is at a lower pressure than QNH. QNH set will give you a negative height and as you climb to zero on QNH you will still be below msl

The General Rule is that in below ISA temperatures you indicated altitude on QNH will always be nearer to your station level than your true height

This works for obstacle clearance as well. If you are climbing over a mountain in cold conditions your indicated altitude will put you nearer to your station level, which is lower than your true height

This has been about cold air> If the conditions given are for temperatures above ISA then reverse the logic!

A quick google search is your friend :)

[shinigami]

hello fellow aviators, i have finished 7 of the exams and all of the ones that left, i belive the most scary one is the gennav. is there a good source to study for gennav, maybe shortcuts, tips or summaries? thank you for your help.

[paco]

Gen Nav is not scary - it just depends how you are taught, but you need to be very skilled on the flight computer.

[UWGGair]

Hi everyone, could you please help me out with this one? :confused:

At 07:33 you are 500 NM from Z.

ATC Request: do not cross Z before 08:57.

You are cruising at FL300, OAT -38°C, M.79, WC -70 KTS.

Calculate the latest time you can slow down to a GS of 320 KTS in order to comply with ATC.

Many thanks!

[cats200]

Guys any idea about the ATPL exam dates for Jan Session??

[Alex Whittingham]

First work out your groundspeed. Lacking a nav computer I will do it by calculation:

Temperature in Kelvin = 273 – 38 = 235K
Local speed of sound = 38.94*sqrt 235 = 597KT
TAS = Mach number * LSS = 472KT
Groundspeed = 472KT – 70KT = 402KT

At 07:33 you were 500NM from Z. You are required to reduce speed to 320KT groundspeed to cross at 08:57.

Consider where you would be at 08:57 if you did not change speed. You would have travelled for 1 hr 24 minutes (1.4 hours) at 402KT, a distance of:

1.4 * 402 = 562NM, an ‘overshoot’ of 62NM.

You need to get rid of this overshoot by flying 402 – 320 = 82KT slower.

This will take 63 ÷ 82 = 0.77 hours = 46 minutes.

Therefore change speed 46 minutes before 08:57, or 08:11.
I have rounded numbers here but preserved decimal places on my calculator to actually get 45.8 minutes. How did I do?

[UWGGair]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to come up with a detailed explanation Alex, really appreciate your input! :ok:

[cavok_flyer]

I wrote VFR Comms, IFR Comms, OPs, Air Law, Weather, and GenNav yesterday in Braunschweig. The Comms, OPs, Air Law were 1:1 from Peter's Software databank. Weather for the most was from it as well except for three questions:

The temperature on the land is 10C/05C. What air temperature from an air mass originating over the water need to be to form advection fog (these are the answers as best as I can remember them...):

A) 10/05
B) 20/05
C) 25/10
D) 20/15

I chose D since the air temp in D is higher than the air over the land therefore holding more moisture and the spread is smaller than 25/10. The warmer air flows over the land and is then cooled. Dunno...

Also there were 2 weather charts questions. For one, you have to find the route where there is no icing at FL180. There is then a list of routes i.e. Frankfurt-Madrid, Zurich-Marsailles, etc. I cannot remember the other question, but it was fairly easy.

Anyhoo, crash and burn in GenNav. I would say that 1/2 of the questions where not in the Peter databank. All of them do-able, but I had mostly questions with headings and NONE of the heading questions were multiple choice: ALL FILL IN THE BLANKS. Bastards.... A really (for me) tricky polar stereographic question: North Pole: A) is at 75N 146E; B) 78N 168E; what is the TT at 155E. Almost all of the questions requiring a number for an answer were fill in the blank. :ugh:

My big problem was time management. Next time, I will use some of the leftover time in one of the other subject and write out the formulas and memory-helpers BEFORE I start the NAV section (i.e. C-D-M-V-T). Saves some time.

[Alex Whittingham]

I stand to be corrected here but I believe the LBA add in non multi-choice questions to the standard CQB, presumably to make it more difficult. You could always go and take your exams in another State if you wish, you'll get a more standard set of exams. On first sight your polar stereo question can only be solved by plotting, ie a scale diagram, which is unusual, unless the answers are widely enough spaced to make 'about 090deg' correct.

[flying free.LEVC]

Where can we check the amount of questions in each exam? does the CAA provide this information at all? I ll be doing the Flight Planning exam in 3 weeks and would like to know the number of questions :rolleyes:

[cavok_flyer]

Hi Alex,

Yes, they like to make it more difficult. Lord knows why. Even the Lutfwaffe guys were complaining. I tried plotting the diagram, but I wasn't happpy with the result. I get the results next week and we shall see.

[Alex Whittingham]

EU Regulation 1178-2011 Part ARA - AMC, page 21. I'm afraid you will have to find it on EASA's website.

[cherlind]

LNAV AND VNAV for sure.

[Veins101]

The question about QNH and QFF relationship is very textbook question and the answer is really clear no ambiguity...

[shinigami]

11 gone 3 to go :) gennav and both agks left.

[oddballer]

Starting my posting career here with homework help, I guess that is as expected. Im currently doing the performance portion of my ATPL(A) and I've been trying to wrap my head around a few concepts, I'm a fairly low time pilot (1000TT Light AC with about 850 as an instructor) with training from the US converting my licenses in Norway.

As Ive seen, people are not too fond of outright "what is the answer to my question"-threads, so I'll try first, then see how far off I am. Unfortunately, the Oxford book is pretty short on information about this subject, not really giving me what I'm looking for. If there are other databases where I can soak up information like this, tips are appreciated.



An airplane is descending with a constant IAS and zero thrust. What happens to the descent gradient when the OAT increases?

Pretty lost at this one. Safe to say, if this was a climb the answer would be obvious, the low air density would result in worse climb performance. Is it safe to assume that the opposite is true for descent gradient? That the lower air density would result in less parasite drag and therefore allowing me to keep a lower descent gradient in an engine out situation?



An airplane is descending with a constant IAS and zero thrust. What happens to the descent gradient when the airplane reaches a lower altitude?

As my only answer to the last question was as mentioned, I would now assume that due to the air density increasing as we reach lower altitudes, parasite drag would again increase and force a higher descent gradient. From reading about configuration and its effects, it seems that more drag will increase the gradient. But I also want to clarify that this is not due to the pitch down moment often associated with extending flaps and gear.




An airplane is descending with a constant IAS. What happens to the descent path gradient when tailwind is increasing?

I think I got this one, but we'll bring it in anyway, since gradient is directly related to groundspeed, I would assume that a higher ground speed would increase my gradient. Am I underthinking this?



Hopefully this doesnt annoy anyone, as I have atleast tried to come up with a homemade solution to this, feel free to flame my incompetence! (Starting to wonder if I'll even survive the ATPL(A))

EDIT: Thread title is messed up, unfortunately I cant find a way to edit it

[Veins101]

Hey odd ball... and the below is just my opinion. You might want to double check it with the textbooks, as i might make mistakes too, that you have already have the answers are in there.

1)An airplane is descending with a constant IAS and zero thrust. What happens to the descent gradient when the OAT increases?

Please revisit the lift equation.
Constant IAS - constant Q factor.
OAT increase - increase/decrease what variable of the lift equations

what needs to be compensated to maintain the same Q factor.

FYI you might want to revisit the chapter on drag, if you are maintaining the same IAS drag remains the same...

it should bring you to the conclusion that the gradient increases.

2) An airplane is descending with a constant IAS and zero thrust. What happens to the descent gradient when the airplane reaches a lower altitude?

in this case the steps to analysis this is the same as the first question, however you do not compare/consider OAT as a factor at a instantaneous point. you compare the conditions at different altitude.

it should bring you to the conclusion that the gradient decreases, as with a down drift.

3)An airplane is descending with a constant IAS. What happens to the descent path gradient when tailwind is increasing?

I believe you want to revisit part in the book defining gradient (air/ground). air gradient is independent of wind.

tailwind decreases the ground gradient and and actual flight path angle will reduce accordingly.

[mglepd]

I think I'm being stupid.
Question concerns supply requirements for supplemental oxygen for passengers in a pressurised aeroplane.
The book says:
100% of passengers: entire flight time when cabin altitude exceeds 15,000 feet but in no case less than 10 minutes.
30% of passengers: entire flight time when cabin altitude exceeds 14,000 feet but does not exceed 15,000 feet
10% of passengers: entire flight time when the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet but does not exceed 14,000 feet after the first 30 minutes at this altitude.
OK so after a pressurisation failure and cabin altitude becomes 14,500 feet who decides which 30% of passengers get the oxygen and which don't?
And how does the operator know in advance how much oxygen to supply if they can't know in advance what cabin altitude the failure will cause?
I think I'm missing something very simple here

[Radu Poenaru]

I'll have a go at this:
An airplane is descending with a constant IAS and zero thrust. What happens to the descent gradient when the OAT increases?

No change in descent gradient.
Descent gradient (much like the climb gradient) is a function of excess drag vs weight (ie. (D-T)/W ). Since thrust is zero for our question, we can use D/W. Neither changes so the air gradient will remain the same.

Hotter (or colder) air does not imply less drag if we are flying at constant IAS. Assuming no compressiblity, const IAS implies constant EAS and constant q. Weight is constant, Lift is constant, density will increase(or decrease), but speed changes to adjust for it (TAS will therefore change), Cl remains constant (as in the angle of attack is constant).If Cl (and angle of attack remains the same) so wil Cd and Drag.

[KJC]

I am half-way through my ATPL (H) exams, so far so good. Are average marks for each subject available in the public domain? It would be interesting to see how I measure up - it is a competition after all.

[Scoobster]

I am not struggling with this and understand the differences etc, but just trying to make sense of an answer without the workings given.

According to the Met Handbook.... '1hPa change per 27ft of pressure change down to sea level"

The question goes something along the lines of

"If the QNH at Coventry (200 meters above sea level) is 1025 hPa, wha is the approximate QFE?"

My working is:

200/27 = 7.4 - round down to 7.

1025 - 7 = 1018 - A minus as the QFE would be lower than the QNH.

My answer QFE = 1018.

The answer however is 1000 HpA .

Just wondered if the mathematical derivation of this is using the above rule of "1hpa pressure change per 27ft"..

Not sure how this works out at 1000 HPa.

[Dump the pole]

Hello,

Have you considered the conversion between feet and metres?

[Alfa bravo]

You should convert 200 meters to feet and then do the calculations.

[Scoobster]

Ok I am with you...

200 meters = 656 feet.

656/27 = 24.296 - Call it 24.

1025 - 24 = 1001 hPa QFE.

So approx 1000 hPa as stated in the handbook.

Cheers.

[Rithalic]

...........RTFQ

[Scoobster]

Not heard that before...

[LookingForAJob]

Google it!

[redsnail]

You will a lot during study..

Read The :mad: Question.

Also, just as important is RTFA. I think you can now work that one out. :ok:

[Transsonic2000]

Ok I am with you...

200 meters = 656 feet.

656/27 = 24.296 - Call it 24.

1025 - 24 = 1001 hPa QFE.

So approx 1000 hPa as stated in the handbook.

Here's how I did it:
1hPa = 27ft = 8m

200 : 8 = 25

1025hPa - 25 = 1000

[TheJayMan]

Hello everybody.

If anybody could try and help me with the answers for some "advanced" questions I have come across over the years it would be greatly appreciated

1. Given that:
VEF= Critical engine failure speed
VMCG= Ground minimum control speed
VMCA= Air minimum control speed
VMU= Minimum unstick speed
V1= Take-off decision speed
VR= Rotation speed
V2 min.= Minimum take-off safety speed
The correct formula is:

a) VMCG<=VEF < V1
b) 1.05 VMCA<= VEF<= V1
c) 1.05 VMCG< VEF<= VR
d) V2min<= VEF<= VMU

2. The induced drag of an aeroplane at constant gross weight and altitude is highest at

a) VSO (stalling speed in landing configuration)
b) VS1 (stalling speed in clean configuration)
c) VMO (maximum operating limit speed)
d) VA (design manoeuvring speed)

3. The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed at which the aeroplane is controllable in landing configuration is abbreviated as

a) VSO.
b) VS1.
c) VS.
d) VMC.

4. Which of the following speeds can be limited by the ’maximum tyre speed’?

a) Lift-off groundspeed.
b) Lift-off IAS.
c) Lift-off TAS.
d) Lift-off EAS.

5. During the flight preparation a pilot makes a mistake by selecting a V1 greater than that required. Which problem will occur when the engine fails at a speed immediately above the correct value of V1?

a) The stop distance required will exceed the stop distance available.
b) The one engine out take-off distance required may exceed the take-off distance available.
c) V2 may be too high so that climb performance decreases.
d) It may lead to over-rotation.

6. V1 has to be

a) equal to or higher than VMCG.
b) equal to or higher than VMCA.
c) higher than than VR.
d) equal to or higher than V2.

7. The take-off safety speed V2min for turbo-propeller powered aeroplanes with more than three engines may not be less than:


8. The speed V2 of a jet aeroplane must be greater than:

a) 1.2Vs.
b) 1.2VMCG.
c) 1.05VLOF.
d) 1.3V1.

9. As long as an aeroplane is in a positive climb

a) VX is always below VY.
b) VX is sometimes below and sometimes above VY depending on altitude.
c) VX is always above VY.
d) VY is always above VMO.


10. Higher gross mass at the same altitude decreases the gradient and the rate of climb whereas

a) VY and VX are increased.
b) VX is increased and VY is decreased.
c) VY and VX are not affected by a higher gross mass.
d) VY and VX are decreased.

11. Given a jet aircraft. Which order of increasing speeds in the performance diagram is correct?

a) Vs, Vx, Maximum range speed
b) Maximum endurance speed, Long range speed, Maximum range speed
c) Vs, Maximum range speed, Vx
d) Maximum endurance speed, Maximum range speed, Vx

12. Approaching in turbulent wind conditions requires a change in the landing reference speed (VREF):

a) Increasing VREF
b) Lowering VREF
c) Keeping same VREF because wind has no influence on IAS.
d) Increasing VREF and making a steeper glide path to avoid the use of spoilers.


13. What margin above the stall speed is provided by the landing reference speed VREF?

a) 1,30 VSO
b) 1,05 VSO
c) 1,10 VSO
d) VMCA x 1,2


14. Which of the following answers is true?

a) V1 is lower or equal to VR
b) V1 is higher VLOF
c) V1 is higher VR
d) V1 is lower VMCG


15. Which statement is correct?

a) VR must not be less than 1.05 VMCA and not less than V1.
b) VR must not be less than VMCA and not less than 1.05 V1.
c) VR must not be less than 1.1 VMCA and not less than V1.
d) VR must not be less than 1.05 VMCA and not less than 1.1 V1

16. Which of the following represents the minimum for V1?

a) VMCG
b) VLOF
c) VMU
d) VR


17. Which of the following represents the maximum value for V1 assuming max tyre speed and max brake energy speed are not limiting?

a) VR
b) VMCA
c) V2
d) VREF


18. The correct formula is: (Remark: "<=" means "equal to or lower")

a) VMCG<=VEF < V1
b) 1.05 VMC<= VEF<= V1
c) 1.05 VMCG< VEF<= VR
d) V2min<= VEF<= VMU


19. Regarding take-off, the take-off decision speed V1:

a) is the airspeed on the ground at which the pilot is assumed to have made a decision to continue or discontinue the take-off.
b) is always equal to VEF (Engine Failure speed).
c) is an airspeed at which the aeroplane is airborne but below 35 ft and the pilot is assumed to have made a decision to continue or discontinue the take-off .
d) is the airspeed of the aeroplane upon reaching 35 feet above the take-off surface.


20. Which of the following sequences of speed for a jet aeroplane is correct? (from low to high speeds)

a) Vs, maximum angle climb speed, maximum range speed.
b) Vs, maximum range speed, maximum angle climb speed
c) Maximum endurance speed, maximum range speed, maximum angle of climb speed.
d) Maximum endurance speed, long range speed, maximum range speed.


21. In accordance to CS 25 which of the following listed speeds are used for determination of V2min:

a) VSR, VMCA
b) VMCG, V2
c) VLOF, VMCA
d) V1, VR.

22. In certain conditions V2 can be limited by VCMA

a) Low take-off mass, large flap extension, low field elevation.
b) Low take-off mass, small flap extension, low field elevation.
c) High take-off mass, large flap extension, low field elevation.
d) High take-off mass, small flap extension, high field elevation.


23. The relationship of the reference landing speed (VREF) to the reference stalling speed in the landing configuration (VSRO) is that VREF may not be below:

a) 1.23VSRO
b) VSRO
c) 1.1 VSRO
d) 1.32 VSRO


24. V2 has to be equal to or higher than

a) 1.1 VMCA
b) 1.15 VMCG
c) 1.1 VSO
d) 1.15 VR.


25. The value of V1 has to be equal to or higher than:

a) VMCG
b) VMC
c) VR
d) V2



26. In accordance with JAR 25 the take-off safety speed V2min for turbo-propeller powered aeroplanes with more than three engines may not be less than:

a) 1.08 VSR
b) 1.2 VSR
c) 1.13 VSR
d) VSR

[Alex Whittingham]

May I ask whether you are doing a formal ATPL course, Jay? it would take quite a bit to explain the answers to all 25 questions but this is pretty standard stuff, it should be in your course material.

[daliti]

Hope this is the right section to post this.

This is a question from the Belgium exam

A possible cause for the auto recovery of an airplane after a stall is
a. The angle of incidence (AOI) of the wing is larger than the AOI of the stabilizer
b. The wing surface is bigger than the wing surface of the stabilizer.
c. The AOI of the wing is smaller than the AOI of the stabilizer.
d. The angle of attack (AOA) of the stabilizer is bigger than the AOA of the wing.

1. is the right answer but why? Is the question anyhow correct and can you generalise this question for every plane?

[BittenEdges]

Hi Peter,

If the AOI of the main wing is greater than the AOI of the stabiliser, the wing will reach it's critical angle of attack and stall first as the stabiliser's angle of attack will be lower due to a lower AOI presented to the airflow.

As the wing stalls first, the aircraft will usually pitch nose down as the stabiliser is still producing lift for the reason given above. As the aircraft pitches down, the wing angle of attack is reduced and it unstalls.

That's my take anyway! :)

[Stn120]

With reference to CAA ATPL exams - CAP's were withdrawn earlier in the year and replaced with workbooks for the exam. Does anyone have any info on the content of the workbooks provided?

i.e. Mass & Balance, does it include conversion factors, I take it the definitions of masses has been removed, What about the level of info for SEP. MEP and MRJT?

[Veins101]

Which CAA ATPL exam are you referring to?

[Stn120]

Mass and Balance CAA ATPL Exams

[ersa]

If you have access to Aviation Exam, they have a supplement document you can download, with all the pics used in the workbooks by the UK CAA.


I revised for a week using that site, walked out with 92 percent.

[Veins101]

For CAAS(Singapore)

The work book would be similar to the cap but extremely brief. For my exams there were no load and trim sheets.

You need to be familiar with some aspect of flight planning tables e.g. the climb performance, time and fuel consumed tables (not the graph).

Other than that, if you are familiar with the formulas you should be fine.

[Ronaldsway Radar]

Hi guys

Sat ATPL Mass and Balance this week, amongst others. Results are due tomorrow.

The workbook provided for M&B contains graphs and charts that some of the questions will ask you to determine an answer from.

E.g. 'Refer to figure 011 in the workbook. What are the forward and aft CG limits of an aircraft with a landing weight of 58,000KG.'

They do not contain conversions or useful information. However, on one question which asked you to calculate maximum allowed fuel load based on given BEM, variable and traffic loads, they provided the table of standard passenger weights.

Bear in mind this may not be the case for other questions asking you to calculate specific allowed mass.

[skyship007]

Just passed the FAA ATP writtens first go (84%) after a week of both Sporties Pilot Shop books and the Sheppard Air online ATP Multi course.

The exam was a joke as I did not get one complex flight planning question, just easy graphical and W&B ones. The only calculation I got wrong was coverting an RVR of 5,000 ft to US miles. My calculator only did feet to NM, not US jobs!

If you have to suffer the FAA ATP writtens (The CAE CTP course was easy, although they are rather expensive), make sure you gen up on all the factors and definitions relating to CRM, as some of the questions seem to have 2 correct answers. It might well be turning into a real tough exam for the none native English drivers.

I'd only seen about half of the questions before, so it appears the FAA are trying to stop folks passing who just remember the answers.

[Alex Whittingham]

Hi Portvale,

Yes, this would stump me. It is true (although rather obvious) that there can only be one sunrise and sunset each day, which is what the preamble to the question says.

The times of sunrise and sunset are given for a range of latitudes in Local Mean Time (LMT) for a particular day. Thus they are correct for all longitudes as LMT, but will need to have the time converted to UTC and possibly Standard Time depending on requirements.

Answer (b) is possibly true if 'these data are accurate only for places on the Greenwich meridian' actually means 'these data are accurate when (incorrectly) read as UTC times only for places on the Greenwich meridian' which is a bit of a stretch involving either a very badly written answer or a serious lack of understanding of LMT and UTC by the examiner.

As the times are LMT they are enough to be used for all longitudes with appropriate corrections applied, and the inference is that they are used to calculate light conditions, (c) is correct.

The sunrise and sunset times are only correct at mean sea level, and adjustment for altitude can be made, (d) is correct.

My money is on answer (a), but for the shabbiness of answer (b) whoever wrote this question should be flogged. Where is it from, please?

[Alex Whittingham]

On reflection, the LMT times of sunrise and sunset will change from day to day, and therefore with the rotation of the earth. The LMT of sunrise at a particular latitude and 179deg59'W might be read from the almanac as 0600 LMT on the 5th March, for instance (made up numbers), whereas the LMT of sunrise from the tables for the next day at the same latitude and 179deg59E (only a few miles away) might show as 0605. Clearly they cannot both be correct, and in fact neither is, because the tables show LMT of sunrise and sunset at greenwich on the assumption that the difference for up to 12 hours equivalent of longitude is not wildly significant. That might be a better reason why (b) is true and avoids me slandering the examiner.

[RichardH]

If you look in the full version of the Air Almanac in the explanations it says :-

in note 2 - that further correction graphs and tables are to be used to correct for the height of the observer. Option D true

in note 4 - sunrise, sunset & twilight are for the Greenwich meridian and it goes on to state there is no significant error in converting to LMT (other than using longitude arc to time). Options B & C true.

So on that A is correct, however I agree not a good question.

[aladdin1987]

Can someone help me with this question

A pilot wishes to turn left on to a northerly heading with 10 degree bank at a latitude of 50 degree north. using a direct reading compass, in order to achieve this he must stop the turn to an approx heading of

a) 030 degree
b) 355 degree
c) 330 degree
d) 015 degree


A pilot wishes to turn right on to a northerly heading with 20 degree bank at a latitude of 40 degree north. using a direct reading compass, in order to achieve this he must stop the turn to an approx heading of

a) 030 degree
b) 350 degree
c) 330 degree
d) 010 degree

thanks in advance

[felixflyer]

I need to resit all my ATPL exams as they expired. I have decided to redo them and have rejoined my old school in order to do the progress tests again and be put forward for the exams.

I need to pay extra for the books but I still have my old ones. From reading on here it seems things may have changed in the theory since I did mine 5 years ago. Would my old training manuals still be relevant or have the subjects changed a lot in the last 5 years. Is there things I no longer need to study and has anything been added?

Regards

[paco]

Nothing's really been added or taken away , just shifted - i.e. inertial nav is now in instruments (can't think why). You would probably find that a question database is more up to date.

phil

[Alex Whittingham]

Hi aladdin, this question relates to turning errors on direct reading compasses. These occur not because the aircraft is turning but because it is banking, and on certain headings the compass card is allowed, because of the bank, to line up or to attempt to line up with the lines of magnetic flux which are not level with the earth's surface but dive into it at an angle of dip in excess of 60 deg at 50N. The swirl of the liquid in the compass can add to or reduce this effect. There is a good explanation here (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2007.pdf), page 7.24 on, titled 'dip errors'. I use the acronym UNOS for the northern hemisphere, meaning Undershoot on turns to North and Overshoot on turns through South

The amount to undershoot or overshoot the target heading on turns clearly depends on bank angle, dip (ie magnetic latitude) and target heading. There are various rules of thumb to allow you to estimate this. The FAA Instrument Flying handbook here (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083-15B.pdf) contains a rather spurious explanation for turning error on page 5.12 together with some rules of thumb for this undershoot or overshoot. On page 7.22 there are some entirely different rules of thumb. In my limited experience these are both of questionable accuracy, and the example in the second case only seems to work because they choose a latitude of about 30N.

When the JAA exams started the UK CAA were asked which rules of thumb we should follow for the exams and they said 'always undershoot or overshoot by 20 to 30 degrees, irrespective of bank angle, and in the exam turns will be on to north or south'. Consequently we apply this rule for the exam, and therefore the answers to your questions should be (a) and (c).

[mirkoni]

Hi ,

This is really bugging me. Please help. Why do we use 2/3 of the cruising altitude for calculating average TAS during climbing (and why we use 1/2 for descent). Why this value? Where is it derived from?
Thanks in advance.

Mirkoni.

[frf]

Hi Mirkoni,

First, keep in mind TAS and wind vary with altitude. In order to calculate TOC and TOD position, you need average values of TAS and wind.

During climb, your slope decreases with altitude. So you spend a half time below the two thirds of your targeted altitude and the other half above those two thirds. As a result, the average values to be taken into account regarding wind and speed calculation are the wind and the TAS at the two thirds of your climb layer.

During descent, your slope remains constant. As a result, wind and TAS can be considered as average values at the altitude corresponding to the middle of your descent layer.

[Ayassine]

Hello,
Can aircraft land on runway if ACN is greater than PCN ? If yes what is the maximum difference between this values ?
Thanks

[szeki]

Hi! I have one question! Is there any difference between the different Oxford ATPL books issues? Especially concerning the air law... So can I prepare successfully with the older issuses ( like the 2008 edition?). Thank you in advance

[maximus610]

A question from PPL question bank(might be also helpful for ATPL):

When the aircraft is climbing with the constant speed the lift produced by the wings is less than the weight of the aircraft?

The right answer is yes, the lift is less than the weight.

Why, as far as I know all the forces(resultant forces) are equal in steady climb?

[Alex Whittingham]

http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/principlesofflight/climb.jpg

Apologies for using a diagram from somewhere else. In the climb the lift acts at right angles to the chord line but the weight acts directly down. The weight can be resolved into two elements, the force that opposes lift, W cos gamma, and the 'drag' element of weight W sin gamma. You can see that W cos gamma (which should show in the diagram as a vector the same length as the lift, but doesn't quite) is less than the weight, so lift is less than weight. Take an extreme case, an F15 going vertical, lift is zero, all the climb comes from the thrust.

Although this answers your question the next bit is to observe that the forces along the axis of the aircraft are Thrust in one direction and Drag and W sin gamma in the other so we can say that for a non-accelerating climb,

T = D + W sin gamma

resolving this,

sin gamma = (T - D)/weight

Which means that the maximum value of sin gamma, in other words the best climb angle, occurs where there is the greatest excess thrust over drag, VMD for a jet, and where the weight is least.

[keith williams]

Hello,
Can aircraft land on runway if ACN is greater than PCN ? If yes what is the maximum difference between this values ?
Thanks

This subject is too large for a single post here.

If you do a google search for "Landing when ACN exceeds PCN", it should lead you to a link to a CAA document entitled

Criteria for operations where ACN > PCN.

This should answer your question in full.

[Transsonic2000]

I'd need some help/opinions with the following question:

Refer to Route Manual chart E(HI)4 CAA
What is the best route from CLACTON CLN 114.55 (51°51'N 001°09'E) to MIDHURST MID (51°03.2'N 000°37.4'W)?

- UB29 LAM UR1 (given as correct answer. I can't see/find a direct connect between UB29 and Clacton)
- TRIPO UR1 LAM UR1
- UR12 (this would be my choice)
- UR123

[ersa]

Transonic

Yes the answer is correct

clacton via 256 radial UB29 to lambourne and then ur1 tracking 225 to midhurst

If your not using the CAA E(HI)4 then it won't make sense , there is a Jeppesen E(HI)4 chart as well , which one are you using

[paco]

There's a 3/4 and a 4/5 - use the 4/5 unless told otherwise. They don't merge at the same places.

Phil

[Transsonic2000]

Many thanks for the feedback! Indeed I was looking at the wrong chart, now it makes sense.

[Transsonic2000]

I got a quick question regarding the Flight Planning exam (ATP 033) is it allowed to put any labels (free of any notes of course) on the approach charts contained in the Jepp Student Manual to make it a bit easier to find the particular airport/approach and to safe time during the exam?

Any advise appreciated!

[RichardH]

Not anymore. Supposed to be a totally clean copy, that means all the lines, marks & aids you may have made during training need to be erased or removed.
Interesting how highlights you marked a year ago before the rule change came in force a couple of months ago might be viewed.

Be interested to know how well/determined this is actually been policed/enforced.

Back in 1999 when all this changed (for the worst) the accepted convention was no highlights or extra information but pencil lines were okay as it was "a working document" the trouble is the 'competent authority' keeps changing its mind.

[paco]

Richard - it's being strictly enforced, I'm told.

Phil

[Transsonic2000]

I'd need some help with the following question.

During the certification flight testing of a twin engine turbojet aeroplane, the real take-off distances are equal to:
- 1547m with all engines running
- 1720m with failure of critical engine at V1 with all other things remaining unchanged.
The take-off distance adopted for the certification file is:

a) 1978 m
b) 1779 m (correct answer)
c) 1547 m
d) 1720 m

It's been a while since I last reviewed this, can't remember how to solve this type question. Any advise would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks :ok:

[Alex Whittingham]

The limiting TODR is the longer of the all engines gross distance x 1.15 or the gross distance engine out. 1547 x 1.15 = 1779, longer than the engine out distance and therefore limiting. It is actually unlikely that a two engine aircraft would be all engines limited as loss of one engine = loss of half the thrust, a bad thing. Much more likely on a four engined aircraft where loss of an engine = loss of a quarter of the thrust.

[Transsonic2000]

Hi Alex,

many thanks for your explanation, it's very much appreciated! Last three exams coming up next week, hope that everything goes well!

[Transsonic2000]

EASA ATPL Exam Statistics;

was just wondering if there are any statistics about the pass/failure rate regarding the different subjects of the ATP exams? I think this would be rather interesting!

I had/have to retake two subjects, Performance and Flight Planning. Recently retook Performance, fortunately passed, but again it turned out that time was tight, ran out of time in the and and was unable to answer the last three reaming questions, but I still was able to pass!!! Had a lot of charts again, would say around 10, many MEP and SEP.

Unfortunately I failed Flight Planning (but it was the first attempt), I had the impression that here where new questions added recently, which I've never seen before. I guess the calculating fuel costs charts killed me. But on the other I must say I passed all other subjects the first time, Flight Planning is the only one left and I have sufficient time to prepare thoroughly this time!

[ersa]

Not sure if there are any statistics , I completed mine 6 months ago, and failed 1, but i noticed back them, that the good old question banks are getting less useful as the time ticks by.

[SAFSB]

You are approaching an airfield, touchdown elevation is 260 ft and surface OAT is -30C.

your pub decision height is 1065 ft what us your indicated decision alt.

Need breakdown of calculation pls.

[Alex Whittingham]

I appreciate you asked for a calculation but it would be more normal to use a correction table like the one published by Transport Canada.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/ca-publications/winter2.gif

You have asked for decision altitude, the current decision altitude would be a 260+1065=1325ft. The corrections are for decision height but they work the same way with altitudes. For 1500ft and -30C the correction is 280ft so, using the TLAR principle I would add on 250ft to get a DA of 1325+250= 1575ft.

Picky interpolation (which you would not do in real life) gives me a correction of 255.45ft.

[Alex Whittingham]

Hmmm, having thought about it the correction should probably be based, as the table says, on the height above the altimeter setting source, ie 1065ft, so the correction is more like 200ft and the corrected decision altitude is 260+1065+200=1525ft.

[Transsonic2000]

I'd need some help with the following questions.

The route distance from CHIEVRES (CIV) to BOURSONNE (BSN) is: 97 NM

Which chart/Airport is the question referring to, since there is no reference given in the question? I believe it's EHAM (Schiphol) but I can't find the respective chart (SID/STAR). Any advise would be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks!

[hvogt]

Hi Transsonic2000,

In the exam, you will be given the appropriate chart. If this is from a practice question bank, you might want to take a look at an en-route chart that covers France.

[Transsonic2000]

Hi hvogt,

yes indeed this question is out of a practice QDB, but meanwhile I found the appropriate chart. I was looking at the wrong chart, it's not Schiphol it's Paris (STAR 20-2). Anyway, thanks for your reply.

[Feather44]

Hi,

as far as I remember, a quick approximation is:

4ft / per each° away from ISA / 1000ft

decision height: 1065
thouchdown elev: 260
Delta ISA: from -35 to +13 = 48

temp correction: 4 x 48 x 1.065 = 204ft

meaning your new minimum becomes: 1065 + 260 + 204 = 1529ft

[dlcmdrx]

Any guys with feedback from GNav CAA Uk in November this year??

[D driver]

lil help with this one plz...

DR position is 62N09W and a relative bearing on an NDB at 64N17W is found to be 247 when the magnetic heading is 070. the variation at the aircraft is 14 W and at the NDB 20 W. Give the true bearing to plot from the NDB on a polar stearographic chart:

Answer given is 111

[Alex Whittingham]

magnetic bearing from aircraft to beacon is 247 + 70 = 317
true bearing aircraft to beacon is 317 -14 = 303
true bearing beacon to aircraft (still measured at the aircraft) is 303 -180 = 123
true bearing beacon to aircraft measured at the beacon is 123 +/- convergency
on a polar chart convergency is change of longitude, 17W - 9W = 8 degrees
a quick sketch shows it should be subtracted
true bearing to plot is 123 - 8 = 115 degrees.

[D driver]

so i guess the given answer is actually wrong... tnx :ok:

[Alex Whittingham]

did they give an explanation?

[D driver]

nope nthing just mcq's

[D driver]

another question...

Which of the following data, in addition to the Pseudo Random Noise (PRN) code, forms part of the so called Navigation Message transmitted by NAVSTAR/GPS satellites?

a)Time; data to impair the accuracy of the position fix (Selective Availability SA)
b)Almanac data; satellite status information
c)Data to correct receiver clock error; almanac data
d)Time; position of the satellites

answer given is B I wonder what is wrong with D? an excerpt from oxford ATPL says:-
The information contained in the nav and system data message is:
SV position
SV clock time
SV clock error
Information on ionospheric conditions
Supplementary information, including the almanac (orbital parameters for the SVs), SV
health (P-code only) correlation of GPS time with UTC and other command and control
functions.

so how does it not give time(or SV clock time)and position of sattelites(almanac) i.e. D? :*

[tsamotas]

I was wondering what would be the best course of action if engine failure occurred while in traffic pattern; keep the flaps or retract them? Could this response be aircraft-specific? Some people comment that flaps generate a lot of drag and should be removed, other state that the energy loss while transitioning from flaps to no flaps is more energy consuming and includes the risk of stalling. Any ideas? I would be grateful if someone had any reference (book, paper, website) to support their view. Many thanks

[B737900er]

The answer to your question depends on what type/class of aircraft your flying. If its a single engine aircraft i would be aiming for the runway ASAP I would also take out the flap if if was a fair distance away. If i know I can glide to the runway i would leave the flap out. This is where Airmanship comes to play.

Multiengine aircraft are easier to deal with.

[Dream2Jet]

Can anyone pls explain this question pls?

In which approx direction does the centre of a non occluded frontal depression move?

The answer is in the direction of the warm sector isobars.

Not sure what it means by non occluded, is this a cold front?

Thanks

[Transsonic2000]

There's a special section for this type of questions - see link:

http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/455580-atpl-theory-questions-34.html

[B Fraser]

A non occluded front is either a cold or warm front where the edge of the front reaches the ground.


The answer is that the system moves in the direction of the isobars in the warm sector i.e. behind a warm front or in front of a cold front.

[Dream2Jet]

thanks fraser, in laymans terms, whats the best explanation of the Gradient wind, Pressure Gradient Wind, Geostrophic, Coriolis Force and CFF?

How many layers are there, surface? Friction, turbulence layer?

thanks again

[paco]

1.Air will try to flow in a straight line from high to low pressure.

2. It cannot do this because the Earth is spinning, so it veers to the right.

3. Centrifugal force kicks in with the result that, at 2000 feet, where there is no friction, the wind tends to follow the isobars.

4. Below 2000 feet, because the effect of centrifugal force reduces, the wind will back by about 30 degrees over land (20 over the sea) and about 10 knots by the time you get to the surface.

Simples.

Phil

[Ayassine]

Hello ,

Can a/c land with a qty of fuel less than the final reserve ?
If yes, which case ?

Thank you

[paco]

You can always land with less than final reserve. The difference is that in Europe you must declare an emergency. That is, after all, what it is for. In other countries, as long as you take off with it, you can just use it.

phil

[shaun ryder]

I think it ŵould be more correct to say that you can not plan to land with less than final reserve.
You can burn in to your alternate fuel providing that the airfield you are holding over passes an EAT. Subject to an assesment by the commander of various other factors included.

[Ayassine]

Yes I agree.but if you land less than final reserve maybe say bye bye to your license !

[paco]

I don't see why, as long as you do your flight planning properly - that's what the procedure is for.

phil

[mhaldron]

Anyone have any trouble with OPS exam this week??

[Alex Whittingham]

We believe lots of people did. Many candidates pulled out, pass marks from those that sat the papers are well down.

[JPlumridge]

I took Ops exam this week got results today and it is my lowest mark by far! I either focussed on completely wrong material or the examiners have taken a new direction with Ops.

[Dream2Jet]

what happened with the ops exams, i have it next month....

[mhaldron]

I took Ops exam this week got results today and it is my lowest mark by far! I either focussed on completely wrong material or the examiners have taken a new direction with Ops.
Same here, I was getting 90% plus everytime on Aviation exam, walked out the exam not knowing what the hell I had been studying and only got 60 marks in the exam!! So back to studying!!

[Mikeoscar94]

Hi all

Any further feedback on the OPS exam would be greatly appreciated. I'm sitting it next week and noticing people's responses hasn't got me feeling too great! :yuk:

Rgds

M

[ersa]

Ops was an easy given exam about 9th month ago, looks like those new questions have appeared

[paco]

There would be a lot more about the insides of a company and AOC operations as opposed to aerial work.

A good read of COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 would be instructive ;)

Phil

[Dream2Jet]

thats a 148 page document?! anything a bit more specific, some example questions pls?

[paco]

Well, I wrote a lot of them so I'm not about to tell you what they are. But all of them were taken from that document. I don't think it's too much to ask any pilot to know the rules that govern their activities, even if there are 148 pages.

As mentioned, more of an emphasis on company operations, who is responsible for what, with a fair sprinkling of performance regs and obstruction clearance would be a good start.

phil

[Mikeoscar94]

Well, I wrote a lot of them so I'm not about to tell you what they are. But all of them were taken from that document. I don't think it's too much to ask any pilot to know the rules that govern their activities, even if there are 148 pages.

As mentioned, more of an emphasis on company operations, who is responsible for what, with a fair sprinkling of performance regs and obstruction clearance would be a good start.

phil

Thank you for the heads up Phil!

M

[Dream2Jet]

thanks, howcome its only coming out like this rather than through the schools, i mean, hardly fair if people not expecting this extra material.

[Airmagnet]

Incoming.........!!

[heretofly]

Hi Phil,

I see that you mention you wrote a series of questions for the OPS exam, using statements taken from "Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012". Now this may be a stupid question, but when you wrote the questions would you hand-on-heart be able to say that you could link every one to an EASA learning objective, as opposed to plucking statements out of the document for the sake of writing questions?

The reason I ask is that our instructors teach us OPS directly alongside the EASA learning objectives, so there should be nothing in these exams that we haven't already been taught or seen before. I just wondering why so many people have failed this exam all of a sudden? I've been through the learning objectives myself and won't be afraid to comment and appeal anything that I feel doesn't fall inline with an LO statement.

Than again, am I just being paranoid?

[paco]

I just do what I am asked - you need to take that question up with EASA. They give all question writers a list of LO areas in which to write questions.

It seems that the new raft of questions has finally made it to the coal face.

"thanks, howcome its only coming out like this rather than through the schools, i mean, hardly fair if people not expecting this extra material."

I am a school :)* and it has been mentioned for months on here that new questions are being written every year. Did you expect that they would stay static for ever?

Phil

*and I have been in contact with other schools with a heads up on the new LOs, having asked their opinion in the peer reviews, in case you think I am keeping it to myself. :) Naturally, this does not apply to questions. Not even my students know about those.

[ThePilotWithoutWings]

I suppose it depends on if you have been studying based on the Learning Objectives, or studying answers to question banks?

[Dream2Jet]

ok thanks paco,and most recent most, not learning just via question bank but through the online material that I am given, not seen the learning objectives, just the lectures I have been given, where is the link to the LO.

obviously as well, there is an element of doing the question bank and learning the type of question etc and how it is asked and lets be honest there is a bit of remembering what you think the answer is rather than understanding every single bit of detail as the content is so large....

[anoraknaphobia]

Current LOs can be found here (NPA);

https://easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment

[whiskey1]

Hi Phil,
Was it the existing NPA25 LO or NPA29 LO the questions were written for? The NPA 25 Learning Objectives listed requirements as "LO State the requirements for First Aid Kits (OPS 1.735) where as the current regulations are a different format CAT.IDE.A.220 First-aid kit

What was the latest amendment you used with COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012? Was it COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/640 of 23 April 2015. That takes it to about 401 pages.

The EASA Easy Access Rules for Air Operations runs to 1673 pages and is COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 with guidance material.

[paco]

NPA 2014-29 (D)(1) for subjects 010 to 040 and NPA 2014-29 (D)(2) for subjects 050 to 090.

https://easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment

We tried to get away from the numbers and stick to the simple requirements. For example, the phrase is "According to regulations" (if used) was used as opposed to "Under JAR OPS 4.666...."

Phil

[Alex Whittingham]

I am waiting for clarification from the CAA. At first sight it appears that ECB03 (the latest question bank) has been partly populated according to the learning objectives in NPA 2014-29. This NPA has not yet been ratified by an Agency decision.

Edited to add: The CAA have just replied and denied that this is the case, and say that all questions are to the older NPA-25 objectives that we teach to.

[Wellsey88]

Been keeping an eye on this thread as our class were one of the unfortunate lot to have taken it this week. Still can't believe the CAA are digging their heels in, even when the evidence is there to see it was an unfair exam. (We've been told one person passed in the whole country this week!)

So I'm trying to gather as much info together as possible before our resits next week. If anyone can shed some light to where these new question are coming from it would be greatly appreciated.

And if anyone knows what the correct procedure for a cabin crew member who discovers a slow decompression is? Our guesses were all wrong!!

[paco]

And there's a ridiculous question......

Phil

[Wellsey88]

Thats not even the worst....

How about; When fighting a fire with a handheld fire extinguisher in the cabin, you should be?
A Directly above the fire
B 1.5 - 2.5m
C 5m
D Close to the base of the fire

So no mention of the type of extinguisher, how large the fire is, or what's actually burning!!

[Wellsey88]

We've worked out it's 1.5 -2.5m by comparing results. So I hope it helps somebody in the future!!

[paco]

In the form stated, that should be the subject of a fire course when you join a company.

Phil

[Wellsey88]

But that's the sort of random facts we apparently need to know. I have no complaints about new questions being added but when they are becoming, lets say, opinionated, how are we suppose to study for them?

I've had a look at that document you recommended to read Phil and that goes over a lot of what we already know. It's just a lot of these are coming from sources that our instructors aren't familiar with and if that's the case, how do we stand a chance!?

[paco]

I hear you - we have the same problem here about when to stop, but if you keep the numbers out of the equation, the stuff in 965 is pretty much the same, I think. One problem with that question is, what reference did they use? The Manual of Firemanship? I don't think so! At least, not the copy I have here.

I have made the point (to EASA) that no school has any confidence in the question bank, and they won't as long as the source material for the questions is not disclosed to the teachers, however much it might be in the metadata to the questions. As a school, I don't want to know the questions - all I want is the knowledge that the questions will be sensible and practical, and where they came from, then I can teach properly in line with standard industry practice! Leaving the schools to guess and leaving the poor student to find out after the exam that they guesssed wrong is not fair (to the student) and unprofessional. Why should they have to come up with wrong answers in order to get a question "right"?

However, at least the LOs have been revised - maybe some revision of the question bank could be now forthcoming. It's long overdue.

Phil

[heretofly]

Could anyone quickly clarify what is meant by "aerial work" in the OPS sense, just so I've got an idea as to what the focus has been shifted from.

Thanks!

[keith williams]

Whenever new questions are introduced they should be fed into the exams gradually to enable schools and students to aclimatise themselves to any new study areas or change of emphasis. If a student finds himself/herself faced with a large number of new questions focusing on new study material or changed study emphasis, he/she will obviously feel cheated.

But we must also resist the temptation of being too easily offended. The fire extinguisher question in this thread is actually quite reasonable it refers to a hand held extinguisher in a cabin, so we can reasonably conclude that it is a small halon or water extinguisher.

If we are directly above the fire or too close to the base we will probably get burned.

If we are 5 metres from the fire the extinguisher will not reach it. So the only valid option is 1.5 to 2.5 metres. 1 to 1.5 metres would be a better option but that is not available.

In effect the question is testing whether the candidate knows the following (common sense) requirements when fighting a fire.

1. Stand in a safe place.
2. Use the extinguisher effectively.

I would argue that no student should go anywhere near an aircraft without knowing these two requirements.

Any student who had received instruction on the basics of fire fighting should be able to answer the question. But any student who had simply memorised a lot of numbers about how many extinguishers are required for various numbers of seats would not be able to answer it.

[Alex Whittingham]

Good points, Keith, but one should direct the extinguisher to the base of the fire. To do that effectively using a handheld you would have to be close to it (one to two metres). Not very fair options, really, and typical of the poor quality of EASA questions. If you are going to test fighting cabin upholstery fires IMHO you should test the types of extinguisher to use and where to direct the extinguishant, which is how they teach the cabin crew. The distance flows automatically because too close, you burn, too far away it doesn't work. I have never seen anyone get that wrong.

[keith williams]

Alex you are of course correct in saying that the extinguisher should be directed at the base of the fire. But the question ask (where should you be) not (where should you aim the extinguisher). That option was probably put in to catch out the people who could not be bothered to read the question.

You are also correct in saying that 1 or 2 metres would be best. That is why I suggested 1 to 1.5 metres.

Although I not wish to defend the authors of the questions or the CAA, I do believe that some instructors and students are far too keen to criticise the questions instead of applying a bit of logical deduction (cdf) to them. As long as this attitude persists, the reputation of the exams will never improve.

The question of which type of extinguisher to use is a bit of a moot point. You can only use those that are available, and in the cabin of an aircraft the range of choices is extremely limited.

[Alex Whittingham]

...but if you were 1 to 2 metres from the base of the fire would you not be 'close to the base of the fire'? Answer (d), yet apparently incorrect.

[keith williams]

( Close to the base) could mean anything from zero-point-smidgen to not very much. (1.5 to 2.5 metres) suggests a safer distance. If the student approaches the question logically he/she should be able to select the better of the two. But if he/she starts with the assumption that all of the question are rubbish, the task of selecting the best option will be much more difficult.

It would be very interesting to know how many students looked at this and the other new questions and cried...I have not seen these questions before....It is all so unfair, instead of simply looking at them calmly.

[Alex Whittingham]

Keith, old chap, when you are reduced to arguing that 1m from the base of the fire is not close to it you illustrate the insanity that we put up with on a regular basis. Lord knows, it brings my SMEs close to tears sometimes, one cannot blame the candidates for being upset.

[Dream2Jet]

Well said Alex!

Now anyone else remember any other questions that may come up in the Ops exam?

Are they likely to revert to the previous exam?

How many new questions where in the new exam?

Thanks.

[ersa]

The fact remains , some students have been skimming the question banks to much , and have literally passed the exam on the question bank alone.

This overhaul of the questions , has been a long time coming ....The only people it will effect will be the question bank providers....( and of course people who use the question banks for learning only)

The Students who are learning the stuff, will have no issues....

It happened over here in OZ for flight planning ATPL A, with a failure rate of about 90%.( CASA changed the exam questions) The theory providers just explored the LO and re wrote the notes, it took a few months, but they got the pass mark back up to about 75%,it caused a bit of pain.....

When i did my EASA conversion about 18 month ago, 1 candidate walked out of ops in 8 minutes ,he had seen all the answers in the question banks

[Alex Whittingham]

Of course passing the exams from question banks is unsatisfactory. I think the point that Paco makes further up this thread is that the existence and widespread use of the question banks derives directly from the incompetence of EASA and their predecessors. If the exams contained questions that were all written (i) in comprehensible english (ii) to properly defined learning objectives (iii) with only one correct answer and (iv) with clearly defined reference material there would be no need for them. As an example the answer to the question above is being debated by four very experienced subject experts and we cannot agree, it could be (b) or (d). We only seem to know which answer is marked correct by looking at students' scores in exams. How is a (presumably less experienced) candidate to know which answer is correct unless he/she has seen the question before and been told which one to go for? For the record I would have chosen (d), and apparently been 'wrong'.

As to who will be disadvantaged... as you say we will get our heads around the new questions in a few months and of course revise our teaching material to address the new questions. The only people who will be disadvantaged will be the candidates who take the exams in the few months after the changes, and these are candidates who have been correctly taught to the existing LOs, not necessarily just people who have been hammering the question bank. Our point is that this is unfair and unnecessary - Keith makes the very valid point that these changes could be fed in slowly. Once again EASA has presented us with exams that are not fit for purpose, and where is the accountability? Would this be acceptable in GCSEs? or A-levels? or in the bar exam?

[ersa]

Alex...Agree with what your saying , unfortunately all governments seem to act with knee jerk reactions and don't see the end consequences....

Another example in OZ, ATPL flight test needed a MCC course...guess what regulator had not approved anyone to conduct these courses....consequence ATPL flight test stopped.....people waiting for command seats delayed......

It did get sorted and candidates payed heavily for the new courses...:ugh:

I think companies like yours and phils , will simply rewrite the material

[parkfell]

If you are unable to make any progress with EASA exam dept, have you considered approaching your MEP / MP and seek their help?

You simply cannot have "exams that are not fit for purpose".

The resources are clearly not present to ensure that a robust and fair process exist.

As you say, if they were UK public exams for the general population, questions would have already been asked with HMG involvement.

[paco]

Sadly, I have been within a fingersnap of talking with the Transport Minister, but other (governmental) priorities intervened.

If anyone woudl like to join in, I would be only too happy to try again.....

Phil

[despegue]

Why don't you guys study your theory instead of learning the questions?!

In my time, only 10% of candidates passed the aviation School assessment, study level was of University engineering level but much faster and exams were partly oral and open question written.

Result was proficient and knowledgeable aviators, not useless and clueless button pushers.

I say: get rid of all private schools that have only profits on their minds, make the academy state sponsored again like Maritime academy and get the proficiency up to the level of the nineties. ( the level of the Belgian Aviation School).

[paco]

You can't have read the thread properly. Learning the theory won't get you a pass with the current system, when 20% of the questions are factually wrong, as admitted by EASA themselves. The fault lies much huigher in the food chain.

Phil

[Icelolly]

Hi all,

Anyone recently sat Perf? Did you need to remember all the runway surface factors? Our tutor says they are aircraft specific and should be given to us in the question. I don't want to take the chance and as we don't have the caps anymore.....wondered if anyone else knew the best plan.

Don't like the way changes are being introduced. It's great to have new questions but as long as they sensibly fit in the taught syllabus.

:rolleyes:

[ersa]

Contacting your MEP/MP a complete waste of time, they do nothing...The exam system is a profit making device, nothing to do with knowledge...

Its tweeked only when people are getting to higher pass mark, the profit generated goes down , no retakes....

Hence add new questions , retakes go up......

[paco]

Sounds like Canadian driving tests :)

phil

[JPlumridge]

A quick update on this, thanks to Phil I have now found all of the questions from the OPS exam in the document that he linked to earlier in the thread. Unfortunately for myself and others on my course this document was only mentioned once at the very beginning of our OPS book. We had not been told by our training provider to pay attention to it and so focussed on studying our material.

Also I would like to mention that I do not study the question bank but rather read through the material multiple times eventually summarising it into study notes then focussing on those. The exam has taken a different direction and without being told to change your focus then it would be next to impossible to get a pass mark.

I am all in favour of making exams more difficult and weeding out those who rely solely on question banks however students need to be directed to the correct material in order to prepare themselves for an exam.

[Alex Whittingham]

Despegue, I taught these subjects in the '90s, The syllabus was completely inappropriate for modern aircraft. No MNPS was examined, no RVSM, no modern systems at all (with the exception of GPWS and TCAS). There was no mention of Op Procedures as a subject at all, in General Nav candidates were required to plot routes on a 1:5,000,000 North Atlantic chart, we had only just stopped plotting on Mercators .... we have come a long way since then, but not without some pain.

[Dream2Jet]

Hi there, anyone a good way of remembering the sep. between a/c H, M, Light etc for TO and landings, some are 2 mins and some are 3 etc. Many thanks.

[rudestuff]

Arriving: If one of them is light - it's 3 minutes. Otherwise, 2 minutes.

[Dream2Jet]

thanks, and for TO is it all 3 mins?

[2close]

I actually went to OFQUAL with the appalling standard of questions in the professional pilot question bank and the equally appalling standard of examination management within the UK.

They could not have been less interested if they had tried!!

Let's see what happens when OFQUAL's chief exec is directly involved in an incident which trails back to the exam system!!

[rudestuff]

I'd be interested to know what everyone else got this time round. I've heard that on the last sitting everyone failed apart from one due to a flood of new questions in the bank. I've looked at NPA 2015-29 - and I agree that questions based on NPA 2015-29 could be appealed - but I can't seem to find a link to the current (legal) learning objectives. does anyone know where to find it?

[Alex Whittingham]

EASA and the CAA won't publish them so I have https://www.bristol.gs/learning-objectives/. Do Ofqual have any statutory responsibility to regulate these exams? I couldn't find any.

[mhaldron]

There would be a lot more about the insides of a company and AOC operations as opposed to aerial work.

A good read of COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 would be instructive ;)

Phil

Phil, I am one of the students who are "lucky" to have your modular course study material!

I am unable to find any reference to the above mentioned commission anywhere in your subject material. Maybe you could point me to the correct page??

Also when questioned about it you have emailed your satellite depot and advised them to refer to a 1010 page document!! Do you consider this fair?

[rudestuff]

I've read both sets of LO's, and (annoyingly) I can't honestly see what EASA have done 'wrong' here, apart from such a big question 'dump'

The reason BGSonline is such a useful tool is that it accurately represents the ECQB - (which let's face it, is the most important thing to pass the exams)

The problem is - it doesn't quite asaccurately represent the Learning Objectives. (But why would it need to?) I had questions which were not on BGSonline - but do (annoyingly) appear in the LO's. EASA have simply written a load of questions from under-represented LO's - and we've all been caught with our trousers down!
Three of four new questions on each under-represented LO should do the trick, and BGS will be back on top form.

[Alex Whittingham]

What seems to have happened is that EASA wrote questions to NPA29 anticipating that it would be accepted and, when it was put on hold, mapped the relevant questions across to NPA25. From what we have seen your analysis seems correct, most of the questions can be validly mapped to NPA25, some of the new questions seem to be defective, but the biggest criticism is, as JPlumridge says, that the exams took a sudden change of direction which we could not anticipate. What happens now - in fact what has already started happening - is that we can redirect our students' study and provide relevant feedback so the pass rates come back up.

Data for BGS suggests a 50% fail for Op Procedures (A) and a 100% fail for Op Procedures (H) in the first week of the new exams. By the second week a number of candidates seem to have cancelled their sittings but of those few that sat 4 out of 5 passed (A) and 1 out of 1 passed (H). It looks like the only people that have been seriously disadvantaged are those that sat in that first week.

This is an issue that I will pursue, though. It is not, in my view, acceptable to introduce new material in volume in such a way that a large proportion of candidates fail through no apparent fault of their own . It is not sufficient just to say 'the questions were covered by the learning objectives', there is also a requirement to ensure that exams are balanced, consistent and fair.

[rudestuff]

Alex, do you think it is worth worth appealing on the basis of your last paragraph? You're probably the one to ask with experience of appealing results - I had four answers on Ops manuals asking Part A, B , C or D. I know the exams are randomly generated, but that's a large amount of one exam on just one subject area! Is it possible to appeal on the grounds of question spread?

[Alex Whittingham]

The exams are generated to an algorithm which should select appropriate numbers of questions from each topic area. You will need to check that to establish whether you have grounds for appeal. I do not have the current question breakdown for Ops Procedures immediately to hand but should be able to find it early next week, perhaps someone else could help in the mean time?

[Ikarusky]

Does anyone know from what database EASA is taking the questions from, because today I had Meteorology exam at CAA and from 84 questions and I saw 30 new questions, not available in BGS or AviationExam...

[paco]

Are you serious? EASA do not take the questions from any database - they write their own!

phil

[Ikarusky]

My formulation was typical EASA ( joke ), but you got my point...

[rudestuff]

I just remembered I had a question asking for the definition of PART-ORO - I can't find any reference to that in either the current LO's or in NPA29. Would that be grounds for an appeal?

[Alex Whittingham]

Well if it is not in an LO, yes. But be aware the CAA have been known to stretch the application of LOs in the past to avoid giving in to appeals. The LOs themselves are a root part of the problem, they completely lack depth of knowledge indicators and do not give references. Thus 'Describe a simple hydraulic system' could have an infinity of meanings depending on your interpretation of 'describe', 'simple' and 'system'. 'Hydraulic' too for that matter.

[Dream2Jet]

I looked at the online video for the new questions and it seems you can write your comments on the questions and I guess this is where you could appeal a question, how does appealing work, should you appeal all the questions you are not happy with at the time?

Thanks.

[Alex Whittingham]

You can comment as much as you like on a question but the CAA won't take any notice of it unless you pay for a review.

[Dream2Jet]

ah ok, I thought you can appeal questions or the like? how much is a remark?

[ersa]

Basically same price as an exam, leaving comments at the end or on the individual questions, waste of time......

[harrysingh]

Any one sat the new ops procedures exam have any feedback regarding the new questions or any that are not in the LOs as I have the exam coming up soon and it would be greatly appreciated.

many thanks!

[flyfly4]

Hi everyone, regarding the BMI, in atplonline a male normal weight is 20-25, but in all website it states 18.5 to 25. Has anyone come up to this question in the caa exam? thanks :ok:

[rudestuff]

CAT.OP.MPA.285 Use of supplemental oxygen

The commander shall ensure that flight crew members engaged in performing duties essential to the safe operation of an aircraft in flight use supplemental oxygen continuously whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 10 000 ft for a period of more than 30 minutes and whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 13 000 ft.

WTF?

[Wrist Watch]

Hi everyone, regarding the BMI, in atplonline a male normal weight is 20-25, but in all website it states 18.5 to 25. Has anyone come up to this question in the caa exam? thanks :ok:I've never even seen a BMI question, let alone had it in my exam. Just remember that the limit is 25 (25 to 30 = overweight, over 30 = obese).

CAT.OP.MPA.285 Use of supplemental oxygen

The commander shall ensure that flight crew members engaged in performing duties essential to the safe operation of an aircraft in flight use supplemental oxygen continuously whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 10 000 ft for a period of more than 30 minutes and whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 13 000 ft.

WTF?
What exactly you don't get?

Flying below 10,000 ft: no need
Flying between 10,000 and 13,000 ft: after 30 minutes
Flying above 13,000 ft: always

[rudestuff]

Obviously I understand what the words in the sentence mean - the problem is is it differs from the the requirements explained elsewhere. I always undetstood that flight crew had to have oxygen for the entire flight time above 10 000