Tricky IFR Questions At Interviews
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: South Of Where ever you are sitting
Tricky IFR Questions At Interviews
What are some tricky IFR questions that you have been asked in interviews.
It would be nice to hear some questions that people have had trouble with in interviews.
Or on the other hand what are some good questions?
It would be nice to hear some questions that people have had trouble with in interviews.
Or on the other hand what are some good questions?
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: Orstralia
What are the rules for descending below LSALT at night from FL140 in an unpressurissed, 5 seat, single engine, day VFR category aircraft, carrying 8 passengers, 2 opened cans of Avgas and 3 active fuses of gelignite?
I'm not sure if it's in the AIP's or CAO's. Let me know if you find it
I'm not sure if it's in the AIP's or CAO's. Let me know if you find it
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: no fixed address
Further to the Messiah's first question...
How do you determine you have the published circling visibility for your catagory of aircraft after an arrival, and how was this number calculated in the first place? No HIAL to help you out with this one.
How about Temperature correction for ILS Glidepath/OM check height for say ISA+20 at 1500'?
Requirements for using Special Alternate wx minimas, including instrumentation AND the other stuff?
How do you determine you have the published circling visibility for your catagory of aircraft after an arrival, and how was this number calculated in the first place? No HIAL to help you out with this one.
How about Temperature correction for ILS Glidepath/OM check height for say ISA+20 at 1500'?
Requirements for using Special Alternate wx minimas, including instrumentation AND the other stuff?
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: Established.
Temperature correction at the outer marker, and for ISA +20? come off it!
It is only a gross error check at best anyway and I wouldn't encourage tying yourself up with mental arithmetic at that point during the approach. I accept making a temp correction to the MSA in extreme cold but ISA +20 is not going to cause a problem is it as your true alt would be higher than your altimeter reading.
It is only a gross error check at best anyway and I wouldn't encourage tying yourself up with mental arithmetic at that point during the approach. I accept making a temp correction to the MSA in extreme cold but ISA +20 is not going to cause a problem is it as your true alt would be higher than your altimeter reading.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: no fixed address
Messiah,
Agree with yourself and donpizmeof... I wouldnt be sparing much brain bandwidth to calculate out ISA+20 at the outer marker either, however the original thread started by Gateway customer was tricky IFR questions asked in INTERVIEWS.
Good topic too.
Agree with yourself and donpizmeof... I wouldnt be sparing much brain bandwidth to calculate out ISA+20 at the outer marker either, however the original thread started by Gateway customer was tricky IFR questions asked in INTERVIEWS.
Good topic too.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: My Suitcase
my 2 cents worth...
regarding the 50 ft, i am not too sure but it is either because the ILS glideslope is supposed to bring u 50 ft above the threshold, or since its a precision approach, 50 ft has been added for the PEC.
and from night pistol, if its an IFR flight, then if my memory serves me well, you can only descend below the LSALT within the circling area, which for Cat A, is 1.68 nm from the runway threshold. apart from that, the usual requirements: clear of cloud, in sight of runway, min 5 km vis. ref: AIP ENR 1.5
regarding the 50 ft, i am not too sure but it is either because the ILS glideslope is supposed to bring u 50 ft above the threshold, or since its a precision approach, 50 ft has been added for the PEC.
and from night pistol, if its an IFR flight, then if my memory serves me well, you can only descend below the LSALT within the circling area, which for Cat A, is 1.68 nm from the runway threshold. apart from that, the usual requirements: clear of cloud, in sight of runway, min 5 km vis. ref: AIP ENR 1.5
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: Established.
overmars
It is neither, and furthermore you don't apply PEC in a 747 yet it is still 5x GS + 50'.
It is in fact basic trigonometry, which would take too long to type here but SOHCAHTOA explains it. Remember that?
It is neither, and furthermore you don't apply PEC in a 747 yet it is still 5x GS + 50'.
It is in fact basic trigonometry, which would take too long to type here but SOHCAHTOA explains it. Remember that?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: PH 298/7.4DME
PEC
Overmars,
I reckon PEC is a "one off" 50' amendment.
If we are talking about ROD calculations on a 3deg slope, and if you're adding 50' to the result after 5GS, it would result in a 50 foot per minute increase to your ROD during the approach rather than increasing MDA's, which have no bearing to your ROD calculation.
Me think that the 50' addition to the ROD calculation allows for a more exact profile, i.e. 3.3 degrees.
This of course assuming a fairly typical range of approach ground speeds, for example 120 - 170kts, so CAT B & C, perhaps. If your APP GS is any greater, you may find you have to add more than 50fpm to your ROD calculation to achieve the 3.3 degree slope.
Does this sound feasible or have I had too many jellycups??
520.
I reckon PEC is a "one off" 50' amendment.
If we are talking about ROD calculations on a 3deg slope, and if you're adding 50' to the result after 5GS, it would result in a 50 foot per minute increase to your ROD during the approach rather than increasing MDA's, which have no bearing to your ROD calculation.
Me think that the 50' addition to the ROD calculation allows for a more exact profile, i.e. 3.3 degrees.
This of course assuming a fairly typical range of approach ground speeds, for example 120 - 170kts, so CAT B & C, perhaps. If your APP GS is any greater, you may find you have to add more than 50fpm to your ROD calculation to achieve the 3.3 degree slope.
Does this sound feasible or have I had too many jellycups??
520.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: no fixed address
The maths...
Example 1. G/S 150 kts = 912000 ft/hr (roughly) = 15200 ft/min. That is your horizontal speed.
To achieve 3 degree profile... which is 5 percent... which is 1 in 20, you need 760 ft/min vertical speed.
Or done the quick way, 150 * 5 = 750 fpm.
Example 2. G/S 100 kts = 608000 ft/hr (roughly) = 10133 ft/min.
Again, to achieve 3 degree profile, 5 percent, 1 in 20..., you need 506 ft/min vertical speed.
Or in your head quickly... 100 * 5 = 500 fpm.
Never heard of applying an extra 50 fpm to the calculation, so that's my answer in an interview scenario... and I couldnt fly that accurately if I tried anyway. Gotta use this one as a rough guide for a ballpark figure... I got other things I got to look at in my scan!
Now surely there must be more useful questions that people have been asked in interviews during their careers???
Example 1. G/S 150 kts = 912000 ft/hr (roughly) = 15200 ft/min. That is your horizontal speed.
To achieve 3 degree profile... which is 5 percent... which is 1 in 20, you need 760 ft/min vertical speed.
Or done the quick way, 150 * 5 = 750 fpm.
Example 2. G/S 100 kts = 608000 ft/hr (roughly) = 10133 ft/min.
Again, to achieve 3 degree profile, 5 percent, 1 in 20..., you need 506 ft/min vertical speed.
Or in your head quickly... 100 * 5 = 500 fpm.
Never heard of applying an extra 50 fpm to the calculation, so that's my answer in an interview scenario... and I couldnt fly that accurately if I tried anyway. Gotta use this one as a rough guide for a ballpark figure... I got other things I got to look at in my scan!
Now surely there must be more useful questions that people have been asked in interviews during their careers???
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: oz
I'm not an IFR driver heres my view of things for those who care
The Maths:
TOA
tan(3)=ROD/GS
tan(3)*GS=ROD (knots)
Theres 1852 m in a nm, and 3.281 ft in a m so nm > ft is *6076.412 and of course hours to minutes is *60.
So converting knots to fpm is 6076/60 = 101.2735
tan(3)*101.2735*GS=ROD
tan(3)*101.2735 = 5.307
So all that crap means that for a 3 degree approach GS*5.307 gives required ROD, so why is 50 ft added? possibly to account for the .307 but then again could be wrong.
My 2c
The Maths:
TOA
tan(3)=ROD/GS
tan(3)*GS=ROD (knots)
Theres 1852 m in a nm, and 3.281 ft in a m so nm > ft is *6076.412 and of course hours to minutes is *60.
So converting knots to fpm is 6076/60 = 101.2735
tan(3)*101.2735*GS=ROD
tan(3)*101.2735 = 5.307
So all that crap means that for a 3 degree approach GS*5.307 gives required ROD, so why is 50 ft added? possibly to account for the .307 but then again could be wrong.
My 2c
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
From: Australia
DME gives slant range speed as GS, not 'true' ground speed. So you'd have to use sin not tan if using DME. Not that it makes much difference - I get the same answer as you Pilot steve.
So tell us Messiah - is we right?
So tell us Messiah - is we right?
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
From: australia
I reckon it's probably to make it a tad more accurate. My brain finds it easier to halve my groundspeed then add a zero rather than multiplying by five. Isn't that what most people do? Same result....just seems easier.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: My Suitcase
I am planning an IFR flight to a destination with an instrument approach chart with the minima titles shaded gray. A colleague of mine told me that if I use the QNH on the aerodrome TAF, I do not have to increase the minima altitudes by 50 ft. Sounds good. But if en route, ATS informs me of the Area QNH, do I use the Area QNH for the approach and increase the minimas by 50 ft, or do I stick to the TAF QNH and leave the minimas as it is?
Hope someone could help me out here.
Thanks.
Hope someone could help me out here.
Thanks.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
If you have a local NH you follow the altimeter setting rules and set local NH at the top of descent and leave the minimas as they are. You're only reuired to add 50ft to the minimas if you use the area NH, which you wouldn't do if you have one from the TAF.
The shaded box means nothing unless you have an actual NH - which must be obtained from an ATIS, AWS or AWIS.
...and for those who haven't noticed, a certain key on my keyboard is broken dammit!!
The shaded box means nothing unless you have an actual NH - which must be obtained from an ATIS, AWS or AWIS.
...and for those who haven't noticed, a certain key on my keyboard is broken dammit!!