Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) A forum for those on the steep path to that coveted professional licence. Whether studying for the written exams, training for the flight tests or building experience here's where you can hang out.

ATPL theory questions

Old 19th Aug 2013, 12:01
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Slovakia
Age: 36
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I definitely don`t wanna argue, but if you say this is true, then it is just another junk question, which has nothing simmilar with the student`s knowledge. Just a stupit guessing, which way is the correct way. But we all know, that there are many questions like this in ATPL Theory, so I just have to believe your calculations.. Good luck to the students getting this kind of question at the exam..
Watt001 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2013, 12:29
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sunny Solihull
Age: 66
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes some of the questions make you wonder and FP is much better than most.

As stated this question does cause issues and is one I always explain as discussed in previous posts. It must be right as some students are getting 100% with this type of problem included!
RichardH is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2013, 16:02
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Given that the characteristics of a three engine turbojet aeroplane are as follows: Thrust = 50 000 Newton / Engine, g = 10 m/s, Drag = 72 569 N, Minimum gross gradient (2nd segment) = 2.7% SIN(Angle of climb) = (Thrust- Drag) / Weight. The maximum take-off mass under 2nd segment conditions is:

The only way i get the answer that the data base gives is by assuming one engine is out...but at no point in the question does it say that it is.

Last edited by squall1984; 28th Aug 2013 at 16:02.
squall1984 is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2013, 16:47
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 71
Posts: 4,079
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
perhaps you only need the segments when the engine quits......
paco is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2013, 16:48
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First, second and third segment weights are based on having one engine inop and still meeting the required gradient.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2013, 03:52
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Slovakia
Age: 36
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, I also noticed when learning for my ATPL, that this kind of questions is always based at one engine inop situation. Pay attention on this and good luck
Watt001 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2013, 00:09
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Two performance questions that I have found question banks with different answer.


On a twin engined piston aircraft with variable pitch propellers, for a given mass and altitude, the minimum drag speed is 125 kt, and the holding speed is 95 its. The best rate of climb speed will be obtained for a speed of:

One question bank says 95, the other 125.

What other speeds can you derive from the above question?

The other question I found is for a piston engine maximum endurance is achieved at:

One bank says maximum rate of climb speed, the other at maximum lift to drag ratio, one and the same?
squall1984 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2013, 07:35
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi

Q.1. During a flight to Europe, scheduled in MNPS (Minimum Navigation Performance Specification) airspace, you expect to cross the 30oW meridian at 2330 UTC; you will normally be:

a) in a day flight route system
b) in random airspace
c) in a night flight route system
d) out of the organised route system

why not (d)?

Q.2. During a flight to Europe, planning in MNPS (Minimum Navigation Performance Specification) airspace, you expect to cross the 30oW meridian at 00H30 UTC, you will then normally be:

a) within the organised night-time flight track system
b) with the organised daytime flight track system
c) out of the organised flight track system
d) in a random space

why not (d)? (unless you want to rule out "space" instead of "airspace")

thanks
Haroon is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2013, 08:42
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sunny Solihull
Age: 66
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OTS times are:-

East or night time - 0100 to 0800 UTC at 30w
West or day time - 1130 to 1900 UTC at 30w

Flying an OTS route is optional and a flight not entirely following an OTS track would be called a random flight/route as are flights outside the time periods.

There is no such thing as 'random airspace'. Where did you get these questions? I thought they were corrected years ago.

Both flights are operating outside the standard OTS times and are random flights. Q1 = D, Q2 = C (as the better answers).
RichardH is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2013, 12:47
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks Richard

They still stand uncorrected in some QBs among many others.

Regards
Haroon is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2013, 22:17
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone seen this question before? It was in the Performance Exam today and though I cant recall it verbatim, it was regarding the benefits of reduced thrust.

Out of the 4 options only 2 were viable,

1) Reduces trip fuel
2) Reduces a limited VMCG.

I can see arguments for both answers, one side you do use less fuel when you use reduced thrust, VMCG could be lower since theres less thrust. Any suggestions?
squall1984 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2013, 08:47
  #412 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re yesterday's Performance exam I actually thought the answer to the above question was the option involving Field limiting take off weight being a lot more/less (or whatever...) than Climb limiting. I think it may have been answer C. Either that or reduce a limiting VMCG...

As far as I could see...

Reduced thrust CAN be used on a wet runway as long as it is not considered contaminated. So it couldn't be that...

Trip fuel option just sounds wrong because that is not a reason to use it...the saving would probably be small and I have never seen that given as a reason to reduce take off thrust...

It will reduce the VMCG but as far as I'm aware there is no data to support that in the CAP 698 beyond the VMCG table for max thrust. I have heard of it being used as a technique in the real world but I'm just not sure whether it would be considered the right answer for the purposes of the exam...
Contacttower is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2013, 13:01
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In hind sight I would have gone with the VMC option only because you can't count on the use of reduced thrust in case of windshear etc. maybe someone appealed it.

What did you put for drag corffiecent question? I put lowest point which question bank people say is correct but app examiner is looking for tangent answer. We appealed that one.
squall1984 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2013, 18:45
  #414 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't remember that one unfortunately, do you mean the one with the graph in the annex?
Contacttower is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2013, 19:22
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes thats the one
squall1984 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2013, 20:18
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Use of reduced thrust for climb increases total trip fuel and should be evaluated by each operator.... Takes more time to reach the optimum level
Haroon is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2013, 21:40
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
See we use reduced thrust is replaced with climb thrust at 1500 so saves fuel up to that point as well as other benefits engine wear etc

Last edited by squall1984; 3rd Sep 2013 at 22:05.
squall1984 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2013, 16:36
  #418 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What did you put for drag corffiecent question? I put lowest point which question bank people say is correct but app examiner is looking for tangent answer. We appealed that one.
Can you remember more specifically what the question was asking? I can't remember what point it was asking to identify on the graph?
Contacttower is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2013, 14:13
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In the sky
Age: 38
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATPL question help

Dear,

I know i'm not in the good thread but i need an answer :

Question 16- REF 330076

(Refer to route manual Chart Nap) date 1999
From Reykjavik ( 6410 ' N - 020 N 020 00'W) to Amsterdam ( 5232'N 00450'E), what is the distance ?

I don't understand how they found 18 of Lat difference... Can someone explain me how ? (In the correction they found 18-Bristol)

Thanks
Alew Crew is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2013, 15:55
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: England
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alan,

Many readers do not have access the material to which youare referring. You might get a betterresponse if you were to post a copy of the question and the explanation to enableeveryone to examine it.

From what you have posted I can see that there is one errorin that the longitude of Reykjavik should be 022W and not 020W.
keith williams is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.