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 27th Nov 2017, 15:20
  #1161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Bratislava
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most of the question from new ECQB4 database, I know who made it this web site, you can use. also aviationexam my favorite web site.
ersin737 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 19:11
  #1162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Tomsk, Russia
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That question is so poorly worded that it ceases to be meaningful. It seems to ask for the final forward azimuth of a geodesic (great circle) between the given stand- and forepoints. On the WGS84 ellipsoid this angle is 249 deg (east of true north). See `fazi2` in Charles Karney's GeodSolve utility here (add 360 degrees to negative values). Chris Veness's implementation of the older Vincenty algorithm for the inverse solution can also be used, here. In practice you'd lay a line down on a Lambert conformal conic projection, e.g. UK CAA VFR Air Chart, and measure the local direction at the forepoint 53N 003E.

"Final true track" is a mongrel construct and should be avoided. "Track" is not explicitly defined as a loxodrome (rhumb line), or a geodesic (great circle), in any major text on navigation. Paths with constant true track values are always loxodromes so the qualifier "final" is redundant.
selfin is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2017, 15:04
  #1163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Feedback suggests there's a bit missing from the Q above, rhumb line track is given as 250 deg.

Convergency = change of long x sin mean lat
= 4 deg x sin 52.5 deg (roughly)
= 3.2 deg (roughly)
conversion angle is half this, 1.6 deg
subtract from 250 to get 248.4 deg (roughly)

Otherwise what selfin said ^^^^, but by the standards of EASA exams its an OK question.
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 10:26
  #1164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
how do i calculate the cross wind of - Wind 100/30kts with runway of 340?
SkillsToBurn is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 10:42
  #1165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: GB
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sin(difference between runway orientation and wind direction) x windspeed.

In this case Sin(120)x30 = 26 knots
ab154 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 12:41
  #1166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: GB
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Try going around the other (shortest) way.

340 + 20 gives you 360/000 then you have to add 100 to get to 100 degrees.

For what its worth, you can use Sin(240)x30 and the answer is -26 knots. If you remove the minus sign you end up with the same answer anyway.
ab154 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 13:27
  #1167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: World citizen
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
340 ° - 180° = 160 °
Wind from 100 ° -> sin 60 = 0,8
0,8 x 30 = 24 kt
dan1165 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 13:43
  #1168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 363
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Negan
Am I missing something, difference between Runway and wind is 240 degrees?

340 - 100 = 240?

Where did 120 come from?
Negan, the wind is from the direction of 100deg, not the direction that is 100 deg away from 340.

The angluar distance between 340 deg and 100 deg is 120 degrees.

If you still can't see it, look at the compass rose on the wind side your CRP-5 (or equivalent) and count the 10-degree divisions between the two directions.
Sepp is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 06:50
  #1169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was wondering if anyone could help me with these 3 questions from comms exam that came up this week?

IFR Comms

Q. Isolated CBs have been forecasted along a route. An aircraft flying in a layer of nimbostratus sees a lightning flash. What actions should the pilot take?

a) Declare a PAN as he has flown into a storm.
b) Transmit an AIREP because the CB is embedded. <<<<<<<
c) Report the Lightning at the next waypoint, which is only 15 mins away.
d) Nothing, because the CBs have been forecast.

Q. For which of the following transmissions should each number be spoken individually?

a) Climb to 2500 feet
b) Visbility 4000 metres
c) QNH 1000 <<<<<<<<<<<<
d) Overcast 1300 feet

Q. Aircraft may be required by ATC to make airborne reports of air temperature, wind and turbulence. Aircraft not equipped with data link equipment are:

a) Exempt to make regular reports, unless specifically requested by ATC <<<<<<<<<<<<
b) Required only to report once, immediately after being requested
c) Are required to make regular reports, irregardless of position.
d) Are only required to make reports upon passing reporting points, not more than 30 mins every time.

Last edited by SkillsToBurn; 7th Dec 2017 at 07:50.
SkillsToBurn is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 09:03
  #1170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A note on the first question, NS is associated with warm fronts and stable air and its very rare to get embedded CB in NS, although it can unusually happen when the warm sector is very unstable (unusual) and initial frontal lifting sets them off. One would have hoped the forecasters would have picked this up and included the possibility of CBs embedded in the NS, but apparently not and only ISOL CB were forecast not ISOL EMBD CB, and therefore the answer selected is correct.
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:21
  #1171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you Alex!
SkillsToBurn is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 12:39
  #1172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At least I hope!
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 13:27
  #1173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was torn between B and D in all honesty! Since the CB has already been forecast, if it was in a practical flying sense then you would have aircraft continuously calling up along the route/Airway, reporting the CB/Lightning!!
SkillsToBurn is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 20:05
  #1174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 14 Posts
In case anyone is interested, in answer 2, this is straight from CAP 413:

2.13 When transmitting messages containing aircraft callsigns, altimeter
settings
, flight levels (with the exception of FL100, 200, 300 etc.
which are expressed as ‘Flight Level (number) HUN DRED’),
headings, wind speeds/directions, pressure settings, airspeed,
transponder codes and frequencies, each digit shall be transmitted
separately;
paco is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 20:12
  #1175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...not that CAP 413 is the reference document for this subject. It should be the much more vague ICAO Annex. However I agree with you.
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 20:16
  #1176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 14 Posts
Bryan Johnson told me way back when that the ICAO document is the only one that follows a national document, in this case CAP 413...... Put another way, 413 is edited first. Go figure.
paco is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 14:27
  #1177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Malta
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question bank vs OAA CBT

Hello,

For the ATPL theory, are question banks (like Bristol Ground School) a more valuable tool than Oxford's CBT? I was looking over some Human Performance questions and the banks don't get into as much detail as the CBT. For example, the questions touch the surfaces of Dalton's Law, yet the CBT seems to be too in-depth.


Thanks,
mattria is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 17:01
  #1178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Västmanland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Think the best solution is to use them both!
Personally i use Aviation exam instead of bristol but I also use the CBT to get some deeper understanding, Question banks is ideal to know what you are supposed to focus on! gl! =)
danne9595 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 16:08
  #1179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: six micro tesla zone
Age: 33
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why can the following METAR not be abbreviated to CAVOK?

DLLO 121550Z 31018G30KT 9999 FEW060TCU BKN070 14/08 Q1016 TEMPO 4000 TS=

(Aerodrome elevation 1000 ft, MSA for sector 000-190° 5800 ft, for sector 190-360° 7300 ft.)

Accord to QB correct answer is:

Because the cloud base is below the highest minimum sector altitude.

I'm a bit lost with this one. As far as I understand you don't add the elevation to MSA as MSA is 'altitude' above sea level? If you do add the elevation then I understand how they get this answer.

Practically speaking, if the MSA is 5800ft MSL then I don't think I'd fly 200ft below TCU, so it is common sense at that.
MaverickPrime is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 17:06
  #1180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamburg
Age: 46
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The term 'cloud base' in the answer given as the correct one is slightly misleading as the definition of CAVOK does not refer to any cloud base. However, the conditions for CAVOK are not met since (1.) there are clouds below 1 500 metres (5 000 ft) or below the highest minimum sector altitude, whichever is greater, and (2.) there is towering cumulus.
hvogt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.