Helpwith 2 Questions required!!!
 

Gentlemen please can you help with these 2 questions, causing me minor head aches at the moment

1. Met

Flying at FL35 with 1013 set on the altimeter subscale, the QNH is 1019. The altimeter is indicating 3500ft ant the true altitude is 3500ft Is it

- Same as ISA
-Colder than ISA
-Warmer than ISA
Cannot be determined

I'm going for Colder than ISA


2. Flight Planning.

If in a question on adding up all the fuel given for a flight i.e. trip, holding fuel, alternate, taxi. but no contingency is given with the question. Do I include the 5% contigency, or not going with just the figures given?

Personally I would include the 5%


Any help would be appreciated

Many Thanks

Pretty sure you are right - colder (but ready to be corrected)

Contingency - I believe that if it isn’t specified then ignore it.

Hope that helps,

LF

On the Met question, the principle here is that you can have baro error and temperature error, and if one is present but the altimeter is recording true height the other error must also be present, operating in the reverse sense.

So here we have baro on a low setting(1013) to high actual(1019) so the alt should underread. As it doesn't, the temp error is high to low, so the airmass is at lower than ISA temperatures.

Ask Alex about the flight planning!

Dick W

You always have to have contingency fuel. You cannot fly legally without it.

The JAA expects you to know that you must include it, so they leave it out of the question setting to test you to see whether you remember to include it. Always add it if it is not already given.

Except for those silly questions about 30% of the trip fuel for light aircraft operations, the JAA assume that the contingency fuel is always 5% of the trip fuel. In fact, there are various options in real life, including 3%, 20 minutes, 5 minutes, or a figure based on a statistical reduction method. However, in the fantasy world of JAA ATPL exams, always use 5%.

Many thanks Gents 5% it will be.

Kind Regards

:ok:

A quick look at here gives another opinion re contingency from Alex at Bristol.

Regards,
LF

That link was for a Mass & Balance question, where I suggested that, in traffic load questions, if no contingency is given it should be ignored. In Flight Planning I would agree 100% with Oxford Blue. Different exams, different examiners, different assumptions........

That'll be me confusing the two then.
Ta.
LF