ATPL theory questions
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 353
Likes: 172
From: Kent
What happens after leaving feedback on an exam question.
I had a question in Air Law asking what needs to be taken into consideration for an IFR flight. The options were all applicable so I chose one and left feedback.
I am not sure whether I got this correct or wrong. Do I get feedback on feedback?
I had a question in Air Law asking what needs to be taken into consideration for an IFR flight. The options were all applicable so I chose one and left feedback.
I am not sure whether I got this correct or wrong. Do I get feedback on feedback?
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: England
Were the options along the lines of weather, fuel, flight plan...?
I had the same question in flight planning when I sat my exams. Left feedback but my mark never changed so either I guessed correctly or they didn't read my feedback. Not sure how it works but I always said to other candidates always leave feedback on ambiguous or poorly written questions. The thinking being that the more who leave feedback the better the chances of a question being reviewed. Or so you would think...
I did have marks in two exams go up by a few percent so it does happen.
Some of the questions are a joke, though, and candidates shouldn't be having to flag poor questions up for review. Especially when you're forking out close to 70 quid just the sit the bloody things.
I had the same question in flight planning when I sat my exams. Left feedback but my mark never changed so either I guessed correctly or they didn't read my feedback. Not sure how it works but I always said to other candidates always leave feedback on ambiguous or poorly written questions. The thinking being that the more who leave feedback the better the chances of a question being reviewed. Or so you would think...
I did have marks in two exams go up by a few percent so it does happen.
Some of the questions are a joke, though, and candidates shouldn't be having to flag poor questions up for review. Especially when you're forking out close to 70 quid just the sit the bloody things.
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
From: -
OK now this one is weird...
Found on Aviation Exam, ID 26537
Is it me or EASA?
Of course if I multiply 480 by 0.94 I get a approximately 450 kts... but it is not correct, is it?
Found on Aviation Exam, ID 26537
Given
Mach 0.80
Flight Level FL330
OAT: ISA+15
TAS is approximately (compressibility factor of 0.94):
A 265 kts
B 480 kts [this is what I get with formulas and CR-3)
C 420 kts
D 450 kts (marked correct)
Mach 0.80
Flight Level FL330
OAT: ISA+15
TAS is approximately (compressibility factor of 0.94):
A 265 kts
B 480 kts [this is what I get with formulas and CR-3)
C 420 kts
D 450 kts (marked correct)
Of course if I multiply 480 by 0.94 I get a approximately 450 kts... but it is not correct, is it?
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
About aviation exam, 33 (flight planning)
Could anyone confirm that many questions (even types of question) are completely absent ?
For example, I saw no question about which route to choose between two waypoints, or what the distance and heading are between two waypoints of given coordinates.
Whereas I saw these questions in my school's final test.
Is it normal ?
Could anyone confirm that many questions (even types of question) are completely absent ?
For example, I saw no question about which route to choose between two waypoints, or what the distance and heading are between two waypoints of given coordinates.
Whereas I saw these questions in my school's final test.
Is it normal ?
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
The temperature would be -66*, so if you set the Mach index arrow against that and look against 0.8 on the inner scale of the whizzie you should see 446 kts or so on the outer scale.
*33 x 2 = 66 -15 +15
*33 x 2 = 66 -15 +15
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
From: -
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
33000 feet at 2 per thousand feet = 66.
Starting at +15 on the surface means the temp should be -51, which is logical, given that it's supposed to be -56.5 at 36 090 feet.
But it's ISA +15 so add it back......
Looks like one of those questions where they include false information.
Starting at +15 on the surface means the temp should be -51, which is logical, given that it's supposed to be -56.5 at 36 090 feet.
But it's ISA +15 so add it back......
Looks like one of those questions where they include false information.
Last edited by paco; 22nd April 2017 at 05:52.
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
From: -
Err, doesn't ISA+15 mean that it is warmer by 15 degrees? I keep getting OAT -36° C which are 237° K.
LSS=38.95xsqrt237=approximately 600 kts
600x0.8=approximately 480 approximately.
Same with CR-3. It takes compressibility into account, doesn't it?
LSS=38.95xsqrt237=approximately 600 kts
600x0.8=approximately 480 approximately.
Same with CR-3. It takes compressibility into account, doesn't it?
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Duh, of course.... early morning is my excuse! 
-36 it is, the CR3 (or CRP5) Mach index should take that into account. And you're right that makes nearly 480, using the Mach Index. But then, applying 0.94 takes you back to roughly 450, which I believe would be the wrong answer because they didn't include CAS in the stem. But who knows?
-36 it is, the CR3 (or CRP5) Mach index should take that into account. And you're right that makes nearly 480, using the Mach Index. But then, applying 0.94 takes you back to roughly 450, which I believe would be the wrong answer because they didn't include CAS in the stem. But who knows?
Last edited by paco; 22nd April 2017 at 12:17.
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 4
From: Bristol, England
I think the question KayPam is asking is, why would you apply compressibilty? That correction comes between CAS and EAS, not TAS and Mach. Having found your TAS you would apply compressibility if you were working backwards to find CAS.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
Regarding this 480kt vs 450kt wierdness:
https://i.gyazo.com/0401a1f0cda2db36...7f0ffe4008.png
I put the question's numbers in the system, and TAS is indeed given as 480kt.
And, if you compute EAS/CAS, you will find 0.94.
So, the best I can come up with to explain the whole situation is that they made a mistake in thinking the compressibility correction should be applied to the TAS whereas it should be applied to the CAS only.
A situation where the correct answer would be 450kt is the following :
Mach number is measured from (Pt-Ps)/Ps.
So, say you don't have any device to correct your machmeter for compressibility (which is a problem in itself.. but let's assume that).
The machmeter will overread, due to compressibility.
Let's see how it will overread in details :
You are flying at 450 KTAS (but don't know it yet)
You measure Pt, and find you're flying at 265 KCAS (and 252KEAS in reality)
However, since you're measuring a Pt that's higher than the real one, you're actually not accounting for compressibility, and whereas your EAS is 252kt, you mistakenly believe you have an EAS of 265kt
When you correct for density to get TAS, you compute TAS from an EAS that's higher than the real one, so TAS is higher than your real TAS, close to 480kt.
Then you compute your mach number and find a number close to 0.8.
So you believe you're flying at M0.8
Your machmeter measures M0.8, but it actually overread due to non accounting of compressibility.
At this precise moment, you're in your imaginary aircraft with your wierdo-non-corrected-machmeter and an EASA civil servant steps into the cockpit and asserts the compressibility factor is 0.94. Darn, your non-corrected-machmeter overestimated speed by a factor of 6% !
So you're flying at M.75, which is exactly 450kt.
I reckon it is very very far fetched and I don't know what I would answer if this question did come up.
I don't even know if a non corrected machmeter exists...
Aviation Calculator
https://i.gyazo.com/0401a1f0cda2db36...7f0ffe4008.png
I put the question's numbers in the system, and TAS is indeed given as 480kt.
And, if you compute EAS/CAS, you will find 0.94.
So, the best I can come up with to explain the whole situation is that they made a mistake in thinking the compressibility correction should be applied to the TAS whereas it should be applied to the CAS only.
A situation where the correct answer would be 450kt is the following :
Mach number is measured from (Pt-Ps)/Ps.
So, say you don't have any device to correct your machmeter for compressibility (which is a problem in itself.. but let's assume that).
The machmeter will overread, due to compressibility.
Let's see how it will overread in details :
You are flying at 450 KTAS (but don't know it yet)
You measure Pt, and find you're flying at 265 KCAS (and 252KEAS in reality)
However, since you're measuring a Pt that's higher than the real one, you're actually not accounting for compressibility, and whereas your EAS is 252kt, you mistakenly believe you have an EAS of 265kt
When you correct for density to get TAS, you compute TAS from an EAS that's higher than the real one, so TAS is higher than your real TAS, close to 480kt.
Then you compute your mach number and find a number close to 0.8.
So you believe you're flying at M0.8
Your machmeter measures M0.8, but it actually overread due to non accounting of compressibility.
At this precise moment, you're in your imaginary aircraft with your wierdo-non-corrected-machmeter and an EASA civil servant steps into the cockpit and asserts the compressibility factor is 0.94. Darn, your non-corrected-machmeter overestimated speed by a factor of 6% !
So you're flying at M.75, which is exactly 450kt.
I reckon it is very very far fetched and I don't know what I would answer if this question did come up.
I don't even know if a non corrected machmeter exists...
Aviation Calculator
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
