Is "Ace" a sick inside joke?

[leyahl]

Hi all. I'm about a week away from finishing commercial training and booked into an MCC course soon. Like lots of people, I've bought the "Ace the Technical Pilot Interview" book to brush up on knowledge that has leaked from my brain since the ATPLs.

Having read 20 or so pages, I am yet to come across an explanation to an interview question that is either a) correct or b) even close to offering the full answer without glaring and fundamental omissions. I know that it is well documented that there are *SOME* inaccuracies, but didn't know it was quite this bad. I'm rather disappointed really.

I've come to two conclusions; one of which could be correct. Either the author, although well-meaning with his intentions, is just not that knowledgeable, or this is some kind of sick joke to make it more difficult for us all to secure that elusive job.

I suppose that the above statement is in jest, but what I find rather worrying is that recruitment departments are often found out to be using this as THEIR source of questions and answers. I sure hope they are more learned than the author!

That said, it has so far been an interesting read, if only to jog my memory and challenge the answers offered. Be warned though- this book is not gospel!

[EK4457]

Hi Layahl,

This has been done to death many times on this site.

The general consensus seems to be that the questions are very realistic and well researched. The answers given are not.

If you keep this in mind and you have the motivation to look up the answers for yourself, it is still a very useful book.

Now all you need is an interview to study for! :eek:

[BigNumber]

The rate that EK are expanding he'll be coming to see you just after his mcc.

[MCDU2]

You would do just as well trawling through the Ryanair interview threads. It's running to 156 pages now. Open up a word processor and copy and paste the questions into one column then the given answers into the next and put another column for yourself to double check the answer.

[Luke SkyToddler]

If HR departments are using it as their source of questions AND ANSWERS then who the hell cares if it's actually correct or not?

I thought the principles-of-flight stuff was shockingly bad but the rest was OK.

Best interview prep book I ever bought, by a hundred miles, was "Checklist for Success" by Cheryl Cage. That, and my ATPL notes - and of course PPRUNE - got me through pretty much every interview I ever did.

[mad_jock]

What was it luke

"Which wing section type is more prone to icing thick or thin"

MJ "thin"

"why is that"

MJ "don't have a clue, but I do know that if you have ice on the wings you likely to have more ice on the elevators so a reduced flap approach should be done and as the elevator is thinner than the wing the thinner section must get more ice"

Which then led off to questions on tail stalls. And skirted round the fact I had just come out with some spontanious bollocks reason after having a guess.

Asked the interviewer a couple of weeks later what the real answer was. His reply was I don't know either I just know that the DC3 doesn't have deicing boots on the wing and its a thick section.

[stevef]

Asked the interviewer a couple of weeks later what the real answer was. His reply was I don't know either I just know that the DC3 doesn't have deicing boots on the wing and its a thick section.
He doesn't know that either! DC3/C47 aerofoil de-icer boots were installed as standard but sometimes removed when not required for local operations. :8

[Alex Whittingham]

That's even more worrying. The DC3 did have de-icing boots on the wing and empennage but a lot of operators in warmer climes took them off. Doing so allegedly put 15KT on the top speed. Ah! beaten to it.

[mad_jock]

Well come on then you have just proved that he was as good at bull****ing and had a suspect reason as I had.

Why do thin sections get more ice than thick ones?

[PrestonPilot]

I too have this book, was wondering could you please provide examples of questions that are not well answered or incorrect and then please provide the correct answer. I have heard lots of people say things like this but without anything to back it up.

[truckflyer]

"leyahl"

Yes I am also curious of what is so wrong with the answers in the book?

Not all answers are supposed to be to deep in depth, as you will simply not have time to give in depth answers to every question, to be able to check your knowledge on a broader amount of subjects.

I assume interviews will have some questions that goes into depth, while others will be simple short answers.

It seems to be popular thing to come with such a comment, but I am pretty sure of those first 20 pages, you will not be able to provide the amount of errors that you are trying to imply, either that or maybe you have misunderstood some of the ATPL theory itself!

I heard about these "rumors too", until I actually started to read the book, and I found most of it pretty useful, and from other interview feedback, it seems to cover the most important topics with Q's and A's.

There is another very good book if you want to know more in depth about certain things, and that is the Pilot's Reference book, and there is the JAR book by Phil Croucher!

I would use a combination + ATPL books if I wanted to get some more information about a question, but it ACE does mostly explain the principles that are required to know, in a fairly simple way!

[leyahl]

I'm not in front of the book at the moment, but of the things I can remember:

1) Apparently, Lift= 1/2R + V^2 + S + Cl :eek:

2) The explanation of how swept wings delay Mcrit is both waffley and incomprehensible. I'm no expert, but I would simply have explained it this way: Sweeping the wing reduces the relative thickness of the wing, reducing the speed at which the air has to flow over it. This delays the airflow over the wing from going supersonic, increasing Mcrit. The author talks about vectors perpendicular to this and that and the wing "convincing" (I think that was the word) the air that it's going slower. Also the diagram offered is just plain bizarre.

3) Despite correctly defining angle of attack and angle of incidence near the beginning of the first chapter, the author confuses them both on more than one occasion later on.

4) Apparently wing fences are perpendicular to the leading edge of a swept wing. I would have thought if a wing fence was going to reduce spanwise flow, you'd want them parallel to the free stream.

5) The author reckons maximum wing loading is at the wing tip. :confused:

These are just the things I can pick off the top of my head at the moment. However, as I stated before, I reckon it's still a useful book if only to get you in the right frame of mind for interview and to throw all the right questions at you.
Clearly Alex and BGS did a good job with the ATPLs though if I can remember all this stuff!

[Torque Tonight]

There have been many threads about this book and a search will enable you to form your own opinions. I have commented a few times before. As far as I'm concerned, for the cost of this book the quality of the content is substandard. There are countless glaring and insidious errors. When an aviation textbook gets the lift formula wrong you really shouldn't go any further. If the publishers had any integrity they'd offer refunds and pulp existing copies. Don't waste your money; the author and editors haven't earned it.

[truckflyer]

I admit you are right on some of the questions, and overall there are many things that are useful.

However I have wondered long over the swept wing explanation.

"On a straight wing aircraft, the airflow strikes the wing leading edge at 90°, and its full impact produces pressure and lift. A wing with sweepback is struck by the same airflow at an angle smaller than 90°. This airflow on the swept wing has
the effect of persuading the wing into believing that it is flying slower than it really is; thus the formation of shock waves is delayed.


http://www.flightlearnings.com/2009/08/30/high-speed-flight-sweepback/"

Similar as from ACE!

I really would like to get a proper definition of this.

My theory on the swept wing, is to first explain the straight wing, by a drawing the effective chord on this, and doing the same on the swept wing, showing that the swept wing chord is longer, due to the sweep.
So on the chord of the swept wing the air travels further,

In Ace the diagram looks bizarre, I agree. The AB vector, should be longer than the AC vector showing there, as the AC vector should be the Effective chord when wing is straight, and should be shorter than the AB vector.

Because the swept wing vector chord is longer than the straight wing vector chord, it makes the camber ratio smaller, which reduces the acceleration over the wing, as the Thickness / Chord ratio, becomes smaller due in increased length of the chord, which makes the air accelerate slower than on a straight wing!

[ReverseFlight]

Regarding using Ace for airline interviews, all you have to remember is that the tech interviews of one leading airline in SE Asia habitually focuses on the topics which Ace gets wrong, just to see whether you really know your stuff.

No prizes for guessing which airline it is.

[Denzeldude]

PrestonPilot "I too have this book, was wondering could you please provide examples of questions that are not well answered or incorrect and then please provide the correct answer. I have heard lots of people say things like this but without anything to back it up."

PP, would you like us to attend the interview on your behalf too!
You would actually learn the topics if you looked them up in other ATPL publications, and then you could impress the interview board with your depth of knowledge!!
Maybe that's the type of pilot they'd hire instead of one that wants to be spoon fed.

[PrestonPilot]

Thanks for the sarcasm, however it is not unreasonable to ask for some sort of evidence for a claim that is made blindly.
I haven't been reading the book lately and wasn't planning on reading it in the immediate future so I'm not about to go trying to disprove someone right now. Thankfully someone did respond and it was very helpful so thanks.

[truckflyer]

"Denzeldude"

It is not about being spoon fed, you want to have an area to study that will cover your basic most important things for an interview.

If you say yes, sure let's expect anything from the whole ATPL syllabus, I am pretty sure quite many would fail their interviews, as there is such a vast are of topics, many that are hugely insignificant.

Now when somebody writes a book, and get's money for that book being sold, he should be able to at least write it correctly, you would expect this.

Regarding the swept wing, this is also written like this in the book "Handling the big jets"

[leyahl]

Truckflyer- your own explanation about wing sweep and Mcrit is similar to mine- relative thickness and camber/chord ratio are the same when talking about the comparison of two wings. So at least we're on the same page!
So what are all of these different sources talking about? The wing isn't persuaded that it's flying slower, neither is the air persuaded that it is moving slower. For all of these well regarded publications to be saying such drivel is shocking- especially (as you had mentioned) for £22 in the case of "Ace".

Or maybe I'm the one with a massive screw loose??? :}

[turbine100]

Perhaps BGS should put together a book similar to ACE that consolidates everything together. Useful reference guide and easy take with you if travelling.

[Alex Whittingham]

How about a cut down version of the iPad app with only content, no tracking, quizzes or exams? Should be fairly easy to do. That way we don't have to use really small writing.

[Blinkz]

A fully searchable version of the ATPL books would be very valuable come interview time!

[truckflyer]

It is getting the topics, areas that the airlines will be looking at, obviously in the ATPL's there is much material, and in theory anything is up for grabs, however as I have discovered there are certain key areas that are more important than others.

[Mr-P]

I reckon you would have a huge market there Alex if you get it right and I'd agree £50 would attract an awful lot of attention.

[maxed-out]

Alex
I think a book in the same format as "ace" but with the brilliant explanations given in the Bristol feedback database, would be an excellent read. Hint hint.......

m-o

[Craggenmore]

Why do thin sections get more ice than thick ones

Thinner wings are sexier so ice is more attracted to them when compared to fatter ones.

Got me the job :}

[truckflyer]

"Why do thin sections get more ice than thick ones?"

Is it as simple as the thinner wing will have to go faster, and encounter more water droplets, and because the of the thin wing design, less curvature, the water droplets will flow back on the wing, while a Thicker wing, will easier bounce the water droplets off, and also speed will be slower, so less exposure of water droplets?