Todays performance 2 mark question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A land far far away
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays performance 2 mark question
Who thought the 2 mark question todayw as very unfair as the answers, i presume one of these was right ,were c)469m and d)440m
What did everyone go for i went for d but in hindsight i reckon it was probably more
What did everyone go for i went for d but in hindsight i reckon it was probably more
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK, London
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That particular mondays performance question had an impossible wieght value that cannot be derived nor extrapolated from fig 2.4 SEP 1 of CAP 698!!
ANYBODY ELSE FOUND THE SAME PROBLEM??
ANYBODY ELSE FOUND THE SAME PROBLEM??
Last edited by Pilot16; 2nd Nov 2004 at 22:33.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the number you had to convert was on two seperate lines..so to start with that completely put me off as I thought the whole thing was a typo, and then I failed to see the Kg after the 270 on the second line!! Unfair if they dont credit that question to everyone I think...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A land far far away
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it was a total baz turd of a question. Out of interest, it was one of the answers either 469m or 440m wasn't it? and that amounted to three quarters of a 2mm box, and with the graphs its all guesstimate with how far up or down the graph you go, when its between the lines. Fair enough if the answers are a mile apart but unless i made a horrible mistake, the way this set of exams are going i wouldn't be suprised, they weren't
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can any of you guys/gals remember the wording of the question?
It sounds like one for the SEP1 Fig 2.1 using something like, +18 Deg C, 1500 ft PAlt, 4 Kts tailwind and 1270 Kg TOM. I believe that the options are something like 415m, 440m, 525m, and 615m.
If it is this question, then you get about about 1500 ft out of the graph. Using the conversion factor on page 4 of the CAP, This converts into 457.2m which is not an option. But if you multiply it by the factor 1.15 you get 525.78. The problem is that strictly speaking this is the TODR not the TOD as asked for in the question.
It sounds like one for the SEP1 Fig 2.1 using something like, +18 Deg C, 1500 ft PAlt, 4 Kts tailwind and 1270 Kg TOM. I believe that the options are something like 415m, 440m, 525m, and 615m.
If it is this question, then you get about about 1500 ft out of the graph. Using the conversion factor on page 4 of the CAP, This converts into 457.2m which is not an option. But if you multiply it by the factor 1.15 you get 525.78. The problem is that strictly speaking this is the TODR not the TOD as asked for in the question.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A land far far away
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keith,
hi it was that question except 525 had been removed for 469m i think. I believe 525m is the feedback answer but having not seen the question before how can you determine whether its 440 or 469?
hi it was that question except 525 had been removed for 469m i think. I believe 525m is the feedback answer but having not seen the question before how can you determine whether its 440 or 469?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree the question was poorly sentenced and I believe both 440 and 468 could of been correct- there was very little margin for error!
The correct answer apparently was 468, although I believe the CAA may give credit for both 440 or 468.
The correct answer apparently was 468, although I believe the CAA may give credit for both 440 or 468.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it should be for any answer in that question as some ppl thought the whole question was a typo! like me.. I thought maybe the 1 was meant to be a 3 and so went in on the graph at 3270 which came out somewhere near 615 when converted!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I did the performance paper on Monday aswell, and there is something bugging me.
I have discussed the question with friends who also did the exam and we think that the best answer was 468, although it was so close it could be 440. It definitly was a terrible question!
My problem is, I cant remember if 468 was answer B or C.
Does anyone else remember?
Thanks.
I did the performance paper on Monday aswell, and there is something bugging me.
I have discussed the question with friends who also did the exam and we think that the best answer was 468, although it was so close it could be 440. It definitly was a terrible question!
My problem is, I cant remember if 468 was answer B or C.
Does anyone else remember?
Thanks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A land far far away
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanx for the responses, quite glad to hear that it wasn't me making some mental error. I did wonder if there was something i was/wasn't doing that would have given me the better spaced larger answers
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds as if they have taken a screwed up question and "improved it" to make an even more screwed up question!!! The good news is that provided they accept the appeals everyone will get the marks (usually).