Ace the Technical interview by G.Bristow
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LST
I have the book and was intrigued by exactly those questions that you posed. I re-read them to check and I am still confused.
Dutch Roll- Isnt this due to the 'differential' (my own terminology used there) lift between the wing moving forward with an increased AoA therefore higher lift coefficient and the rearward moving wing having a reduced lift coefficient due to reduced AoA. If the rearward moving wing is indeed stalled, I am sure they are going to get more than a bit of dutch roll to contend with. I certainly have never been taught that the rearward travelling wing is stalled. Maybe he means in 'relative' terms and i use that term extremely loosely.
Engine Failures - If my memory serves me right. When I get hit by a crosswind, the nose of my aeroplane will swing into wind. This is due to the force acting on the tail. IE a left hand wind means swinging left and vice versa.
Quote, page 60:
"... a failed critical number 1 engine will cause a yaw to the left"
Correct.
" A crosswind component from the left will apply a restoring force to the aircrafts fuselage, whereas a crosswind from the right will aggravate the yawing moment further to the left due to the sideways force experienced on the right side of the aircrafts fuselage"
How does that work?
It doesnt matter if the critical engine is the number one or two (if there is a critical engine). If the number one fails, it will swing left, number two fails, a/c swings right. More or less depending on having a critical engine or not. As for the a/c swinging right with a left crosswind and left with a right crosswind? In what type of a/c does this happen. One with a tail in front of the C.o.G. maybe? Or maybe an a/c that has an engine failure while travelling in reverse? Sorry, bad joke.
Seriously, why is there mention of this force on the fuse and not on the tail.
Edited: Just read ali1's post. On the ground and in the air are a different matters. I agree with you totally although it is unclear what the book is talking about. I am talking about before you get airborne.
Dusty B
The 'molecules' that travel 'above the wing' do have to travel further. Look at a cross section of an aerofoil. How is that wrong, please explain what you mean.
Edited: This book while not perfect is a fairly good way of refreshing your ATPL information. I wouldnt write it off completely.
I have the book and was intrigued by exactly those questions that you posed. I re-read them to check and I am still confused.
Dutch Roll- Isnt this due to the 'differential' (my own terminology used there) lift between the wing moving forward with an increased AoA therefore higher lift coefficient and the rearward moving wing having a reduced lift coefficient due to reduced AoA. If the rearward moving wing is indeed stalled, I am sure they are going to get more than a bit of dutch roll to contend with. I certainly have never been taught that the rearward travelling wing is stalled. Maybe he means in 'relative' terms and i use that term extremely loosely.
Engine Failures - If my memory serves me right. When I get hit by a crosswind, the nose of my aeroplane will swing into wind. This is due to the force acting on the tail. IE a left hand wind means swinging left and vice versa.
Quote, page 60:
"... a failed critical number 1 engine will cause a yaw to the left"
Correct.
" A crosswind component from the left will apply a restoring force to the aircrafts fuselage, whereas a crosswind from the right will aggravate the yawing moment further to the left due to the sideways force experienced on the right side of the aircrafts fuselage"
How does that work?
It doesnt matter if the critical engine is the number one or two (if there is a critical engine). If the number one fails, it will swing left, number two fails, a/c swings right. More or less depending on having a critical engine or not. As for the a/c swinging right with a left crosswind and left with a right crosswind? In what type of a/c does this happen. One with a tail in front of the C.o.G. maybe? Or maybe an a/c that has an engine failure while travelling in reverse? Sorry, bad joke.
Seriously, why is there mention of this force on the fuse and not on the tail.
Edited: Just read ali1's post. On the ground and in the air are a different matters. I agree with you totally although it is unclear what the book is talking about. I am talking about before you get airborne.
Dusty B
The 'molecules' that travel 'above the wing' do have to travel further. Look at a cross section of an aerofoil. How is that wrong, please explain what you mean.
Edited: This book while not perfect is a fairly good way of refreshing your ATPL information. I wouldnt write it off completely.
Last edited by On speed on profile; 6th Feb 2006 at 15:53.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is the kind of stuff peddled by this book, I'd avoid it. There are many problems with over-simplifying aerodynamics, as the ATPL exams regularly reveal. The 'molecules travelling further' bit is one obvious area where conventional simplified aerodynamics break down in the face of fairly casual scrutiny.
As for engine failure, it is indeed true that the yaw initially will be toward the failed engine (OSOT, my aircraft will yaw left if either No1 or No2 fails!). What happens thereafter depends on how many engines you have, whether you are considering a 'stop' or 'go' situation, and whether reverse thrust is used. Nevertheless, the aircraft will always tend to yaw towards a crosswind, as you would expect.
Scroggs
As for engine failure, it is indeed true that the yaw initially will be toward the failed engine (OSOT, my aircraft will yaw left if either No1 or No2 fails!). What happens thereafter depends on how many engines you have, whether you are considering a 'stop' or 'go' situation, and whether reverse thrust is used. Nevertheless, the aircraft will always tend to yaw towards a crosswind, as you would expect.
Scroggs
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Ali and on-speed, that was the one I had to think about for a while as well, but I'm reasonably sure of my facts (as they relate to my specific aircraft type anyway) because I've just had a chat with a bloke who recently joined Cathay from my company, and he got asked this very thing in his interview and explained it this way.
Picture yourself approaching V1 and taking off in a max crosswind from the right. The aircraft is wishing to yaw into wind, to the right, and therefore (in my aircraft anyway) you are holding a hefty boot full of left rudder to keep it straight on the runway.
Right hand (upwind) engine now fails between V1 and VR.
The aircraft now wants to yaw even harder to the right due to the engine failure. What you need to do, is apply further left rudder to counteract the yaw, but you can't, because you haven't got any more left rudder available, you've already used up 90% of your available rudder travel keeping the aircraft straight in the crosswind. The only place you can go from here, is into the grass on the right hand side.
Whereas if you lose the left hand (downwind) engine, then the yaw due to the failure will be towards the left. Since you're holding a bunch of left rudder anyway you need to reduce / remove the left rudder input, but you've still got all the available right rudder after that, and the yaw due to the crosswind will actually be helping you keep it straight in this situation.
This guy banging on in the book about 'restoring moments on the fuselage' sounds like a collossal pile of codswallop to me, I've worked at one or two different places as a multi engine instructor in my time and I've certainly never run into any other training notes that make any reference to such a thing.
Maybe it's different in jets with immensely long fuselages or something, but I'm definitely going to stick with what I know I can explain
Picture yourself approaching V1 and taking off in a max crosswind from the right. The aircraft is wishing to yaw into wind, to the right, and therefore (in my aircraft anyway) you are holding a hefty boot full of left rudder to keep it straight on the runway.
Right hand (upwind) engine now fails between V1 and VR.
The aircraft now wants to yaw even harder to the right due to the engine failure. What you need to do, is apply further left rudder to counteract the yaw, but you can't, because you haven't got any more left rudder available, you've already used up 90% of your available rudder travel keeping the aircraft straight in the crosswind. The only place you can go from here, is into the grass on the right hand side.
Whereas if you lose the left hand (downwind) engine, then the yaw due to the failure will be towards the left. Since you're holding a bunch of left rudder anyway you need to reduce / remove the left rudder input, but you've still got all the available right rudder after that, and the yaw due to the crosswind will actually be helping you keep it straight in this situation.
This guy banging on in the book about 'restoring moments on the fuselage' sounds like a collossal pile of codswallop to me, I've worked at one or two different places as a multi engine instructor in my time and I've certainly never run into any other training notes that make any reference to such a thing.
Maybe it's different in jets with immensely long fuselages or something, but I'm definitely going to stick with what I know I can explain
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs, thanks for stopping me going mad. I was talking about a light twin before getting airborne as you probably already knew. I seriously was starting to doubt my knowledge there for a second.
Ali and LST. Wasnt questioning you, just trying to gain further insight. The multi types I have been flying certainly wouldnt work very well if what was quoted in the book was what I would have to do for real. I agree with what you both say.
Dusty B. I am referring to the airflow over the wing (by saying molecules I could well be/probably am wrong). Please take what i said with a pinch of salt.
All of those other people out there. This book isnt complete crap although as has been proved, some of the stuff in there isnt totally accurate. It is good for reminding you what you already know. Particularly when it comes to relating questions to each other.
To give it (and the author) some credit. It has obviously helped a few of us get through interviews! On the other side. There is a box on the 4th page that says the authors do not "gaurantee the accuracy or completeness of the information". For the record, I would reccomend people to buy it.
Ali and LST. Wasnt questioning you, just trying to gain further insight. The multi types I have been flying certainly wouldnt work very well if what was quoted in the book was what I would have to do for real. I agree with what you both say.
Dusty B. I am referring to the airflow over the wing (by saying molecules I could well be/probably am wrong). Please take what i said with a pinch of salt.
All of those other people out there. This book isnt complete crap although as has been proved, some of the stuff in there isnt totally accurate. It is good for reminding you what you already know. Particularly when it comes to relating questions to each other.
To give it (and the author) some credit. It has obviously helped a few of us get through interviews! On the other side. There is a box on the 4th page that says the authors do not "gaurantee the accuracy or completeness of the information". For the record, I would reccomend people to buy it.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to give this Book a massive 
Myself and many others that I know have used this book and have been succesful at Technical Interviews. It came recommended.
For those who have never seen the book it is written as a refresher highlighting the key points to many questions and subjects that may be discussed at interview. It does not give full explanations from beginning to end and full back ground infromation as your already supposed to have covered that during your ATPL theory course. It can be described as more of a recurrency aid.
This book along with the cathay publication is essential in my opineon for anyone preparing for interview. You wont go far wrong. Gets my vote
Myself and many others that I know have used this book and have been succesful at Technical Interviews. It came recommended.
For those who have never seen the book it is written as a refresher highlighting the key points to many questions and subjects that may be discussed at interview. It does not give full explanations from beginning to end and full back ground infromation as your already supposed to have covered that during your ATPL theory course. It can be described as more of a recurrency aid.
This book along with the cathay publication is essential in my opineon for anyone preparing for interview. You wont go far wrong. Gets my vote
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Luke SkyToddler
Maybe it's different in jets with immensely long fuselages or something
Scroggs
I had a flick through said book that someone had left lying around at my flying school.
Spotted the L = 1/2 rho + V2 + S + CL bit soon after picking it up and immediately put it down again, not before suggesting to its owner that he burn the damn thing asap.
As for lift generation, having done a degree in Aeropace Engineering, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised during my PPL to see that the Trevor Thom and AFE books are both relatively accurate (within their albeit limited scope). At least there's no 'molecules must meet their neighbours at the trailing edge' crap as found in many school texts. Anyone doing their ATPL groundschool, or genning up for a technical interview, would be well advised to have a flick through these to refresh their memory.
I'd also recommend a website I found a while back while looking for info on Zhukovski's equation (don't ask):
http://www.av8n.com
It contains the complete text of an (unpublished) book by a guy called John Denker, who seems to know what he's talking about. It would be interesting to hear if anyone else has read it.
Spotted the L = 1/2 rho + V2 + S + CL bit soon after picking it up and immediately put it down again, not before suggesting to its owner that he burn the damn thing asap.
As for lift generation, having done a degree in Aeropace Engineering, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised during my PPL to see that the Trevor Thom and AFE books are both relatively accurate (within their albeit limited scope). At least there's no 'molecules must meet their neighbours at the trailing edge' crap as found in many school texts. Anyone doing their ATPL groundschool, or genning up for a technical interview, would be well advised to have a flick through these to refresh their memory.
I'd also recommend a website I found a while back while looking for info on Zhukovski's equation (don't ask):
http://www.av8n.com
It contains the complete text of an (unpublished) book by a guy called John Denker, who seems to know what he's talking about. It would be interesting to hear if anyone else has read it.
Dutch Roll- Isnt this due to the 'differential' (my own terminology used there) lift between the wing moving forward with an increased AoA therefore higher lift coefficient and the rearward moving wing having a reduced lift coefficient due to reduced AoA.
GBM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBman
Right on that chap. That is how I remember it. but...... Doesnt the wing produce more lift because the wing being presented in a more perpendicular way to the airflow effectively increases the angle of attack (I dont have my ATPL books to hand so cant remember the drawings) as well as increasing the speed at which its travelling through the air. Man that book has confused me.
Someone please elaborate on this...
Cheers
OSOP
Edited to say: GB Man, I know yaw is the precursor to dutch roll,I just ommitted it from my original post, its what happens to the wings when one is presented forward to the airflow that confuses me. And obviously the author of the book that prompeted this thread!
Right on that chap. That is how I remember it. but...... Doesnt the wing produce more lift because the wing being presented in a more perpendicular way to the airflow effectively increases the angle of attack (I dont have my ATPL books to hand so cant remember the drawings) as well as increasing the speed at which its travelling through the air. Man that book has confused me.
Someone please elaborate on this...
Cheers
OSOP
Edited to say: GB Man, I know yaw is the precursor to dutch roll,I just ommitted it from my original post, its what happens to the wings when one is presented forward to the airflow that confuses me. And obviously the author of the book that prompeted this thread!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Trøndertown, Norway
Age: 45
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
This book is just great!
Look what it has made u guys do....... Carefully reading each sentence both forwards and backwards looking for errors - making you critical to every bit of information in the book. What better way to brush up on your knowledge?
One should always be a bit sceptic - Need I say more? -
Look what it has made u guys do....... Carefully reading each sentence both forwards and backwards looking for errors - making you critical to every bit of information in the book. What better way to brush up on your knowledge?
One should always be a bit sceptic - Need I say more? -
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ask Crew Control
Age: 47
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used the above book for my Dragonair interview and found it a great help. Yes there are a few errors, some of them embarassing but in general the book is thorough and the author has done his homework on some actual questions that specific airlines ask.
Some other useful publications I found were the 'Prepare Yourself for Your Cathay Pacific Interview' and 'Prepare Yourself for Your Emirates Interview'. These included both sample multi choice and verbal questions both with answers and explanations.
Good Luck
The Cav
Some other useful publications I found were the 'Prepare Yourself for Your Cathay Pacific Interview' and 'Prepare Yourself for Your Emirates Interview'. These included both sample multi choice and verbal questions both with answers and explanations.
Good Luck
The Cav
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Salop
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I found 'Bluff Your Way on the Flight Deck' works a treat
http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/pro...no2230023.html
CG.
http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/pro...no2230023.html
CG.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Having gone through them all, I'd say that my pick of the bunch so far are 'handling the big jets' obviously, the Trevor Thom 'aerodynamics engines and systems for professional pilots' for the technical gen, and the Cheryl Cage 'checklist for success' is the absolute business for answering personal type interview questions.
I still reckon that 'Ace the technical interview' book is pants, admittedly I haven't found any other glaring technical errors apart from those ones I first listed, however the guy's style of writing is very verbose and wordy, and it's very poorly indexed. Trevor Thom wallops him if you're looking for technical knowledge that's well written and presented.
I still reckon that 'Ace the technical interview' book is pants, admittedly I haven't found any other glaring technical errors apart from those ones I first listed, however the guy's style of writing is very verbose and wordy, and it's very poorly indexed. Trevor Thom wallops him if you're looking for technical knowledge that's well written and presented.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near EGCC
Age: 41
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets picture the scene a moment,
Made up in bed with a stonking bad cold. Pending interview the next day starting with a tech exam first thing, my one lifeline, and I MEAN lifeline, was this fantastic book.
And yes, sure, there are some small errors, but half an ounce of sense would mean the reader penciling in corrective actions for these...job done + rather keeps you on your toes.
What a fantastic book, covers everything, and even provides you with an emergency ATPL' cramming tool as well. 10/10 - Certainly not cr*p.
If you have an interview with a tech exam in it, get this book.
WB
Made up in bed with a stonking bad cold. Pending interview the next day starting with a tech exam first thing, my one lifeline, and I MEAN lifeline, was this fantastic book.
And yes, sure, there are some small errors, but half an ounce of sense would mean the reader penciling in corrective actions for these...job done + rather keeps you on your toes.
What a fantastic book, covers everything, and even provides you with an emergency ATPL' cramming tool as well. 10/10 - Certainly not cr*p.
If you have an interview with a tech exam in it, get this book.
WB
OSOP, you're probably right - My brain always starts to hurt when I try to work out when something changes the AoA. The speed thing is most likely a simplified explanation of what really happens, so i'd go with what you've been taught .
GBM
.GBM
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was also suprised at the number of inaccuracies - and Ive only read about 30 pages.
One I noticed was his statement that best endurance occurs at min drag speed - incorrect - occurs at min power required which is slower.
One I noticed was his statement that best endurance occurs at min drag speed - incorrect - occurs at min power required which is slower.
Ace the Technical Pilot Interview
Has anyone else read this?
I bought a copy to bone up on a few things. The problem was it was so full inaccuracies and some down-right twaddle that I found it hard to trust the information on topics I wasn't that convercent with.
Some notable howlers-
* Got the Lift formula wrong (Used + instead of * and added some phantom factor S (Wing span area- a new one on me and redundent. L=CL*1/2RHO *V Squared-Period)
*In answering "Why does an aircrafts weight change during flight", went off on some tangent saying that the aircrafts weight varied as a function of it's speed (Something about "Apparent weight". I kinda see what he's getting at, but Weight = Mass*Gravity)
*In answering "How do you increase range with a headwind" tried to say that range INCREASES with a headwind!!!
*Gave some completely unintelligable response to "Why does a light aircraft descend more steeply than a heavy aircraft". Because the heavier one is descending closer to it's best L/D speed right? Ask a glider pilot about that one!!
* Had no real idea about what "G" was, and then said Negative "G" was "The Opposite" of what he'd just failed to explain!
* When talking about wide chord fans, thought the chord of a fan blade was the measurement of the hub to the tip! (I think they called this a Radius!!)
All in all,a pretty poor attempt. People are shelling out money for this in the hope it will help them in their carreer and should expect a supposedly authoritive text to not be so wildley inaccurate.
I think a chat with an aeronautical engineer and a "Revised edition" are called for!!
I bought a copy to bone up on a few things. The problem was it was so full inaccuracies and some down-right twaddle that I found it hard to trust the information on topics I wasn't that convercent with.
Some notable howlers-
* Got the Lift formula wrong (Used + instead of * and added some phantom factor S (Wing span area- a new one on me and redundent. L=CL*1/2RHO *V Squared-Period)
*In answering "Why does an aircrafts weight change during flight", went off on some tangent saying that the aircrafts weight varied as a function of it's speed (Something about "Apparent weight". I kinda see what he's getting at, but Weight = Mass*Gravity)
*In answering "How do you increase range with a headwind" tried to say that range INCREASES with a headwind!!!
*Gave some completely unintelligable response to "Why does a light aircraft descend more steeply than a heavy aircraft". Because the heavier one is descending closer to it's best L/D speed right? Ask a glider pilot about that one!!
* Had no real idea about what "G" was, and then said Negative "G" was "The Opposite" of what he'd just failed to explain!
* When talking about wide chord fans, thought the chord of a fan blade was the measurement of the hub to the tip! (I think they called this a Radius!!)
All in all,a pretty poor attempt. People are shelling out money for this in the hope it will help them in their carreer and should expect a supposedly authoritive text to not be so wildley inaccurate.
I think a chat with an aeronautical engineer and a "Revised edition" are called for!!
