Ground School Exam Questions & Question Banks

#1
gphillips134
Ground School Exam Questions & Question Banks
Instead of being 'just

another number' I
could order a
Personal Title and
help support PPRuNe
an aircraft must clear an obstacle at 2000ft elevation by 1000ft. Regional

QNH is correctly set at 998mb, the OAT at 3000ft indicated is -10C. At what
indicated altitude will the 1000ft clearance be achieved?
Explaination please
Join Date: Apr 2003

Location: england
Posts: 23
14th February 2004, 02:54
Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 33
Posts: 6,201
#2
This is a straightforward indicated to true altitude. Use your CRP-5
by preference. Otherwise, 4 feet per 1000 feet amsl per degree off
ISA. 3000 amsl, 998 HPa is roughly 3500' (3400', but that is too
precise) Pressure Altitude so ISA is 8 degrees. The temperature is
therefore 18 degrees cold, so the correction is 4 x 18 x 3 = 216
feet. The weather is cold so altimeter is over-reading, so you are
clear at 3216 feet indicated.
Send Clowns
Gen Nav
BCFT
Send Clowns
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Send Clowns
#3
Foz2
P of F question
Instead of being 'just another

number' I could order a
Personal Title and help support
PPRuNe
By what percentage does VA (EAS) alter when the aeroplanes

weight decreases by 19%?
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: UK
Posts: 137
a)4.36% lower
b)No change
c)19% lower
d)10% lower
Answer is d. how is this worked out?
Thanks in advance
Foz
Foz2
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Foz2
6th February 2005,

17:55
#4
High Wing Drifter
If old weight were 1000 then new weight would be 1190.
Join Date: Jan 2003

Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,254
SQRT(1190/1000) = 1.091 (or approx 10%)

Think about the classic PPL exam question of the stall speed at 60 deg
bank in level flight. The force would be 2g or, in other words the weight
doubles. SQRT(2) = 1.41...stall speed increases by 41%.
High Wing Drifter

View Public Profile
Find More Posts by High Wing Drifter
Foz2
number' I could order a Personal
Title and help support PPRuNe
#5
So it would actually be sqrt 810/1000 as the weight is being
decreased. Comes out at 0.9 (90%) which is 10% lower!
Perfect.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: UK
Posts: 137
Foz
subsidence
Performance Question

Hy
Join Date: Mar 2004

Location: Miami
Posts: 33
For a class B a/c landing on wet grass the minimum

acceptable LDA is..... times the LD?
can anyone help me with this one?
a. 1.67
b. 1.77
c. 1.87
d. 1.97
official answer: d
my answer c.
Class B a/c means 70% -> 1.428
Wet Rwy: -> 1.15
grass: -> 1.15
This should give a Factor of 1.88!
Obviously I did something wrong, and therefore need some
assistance!
Thanks a lot.
subsidence
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by subsidence
High Wing Drifter
#10
I think it should be 1.89. But 1.87 is the nearest best answer. So I
would have chosen that in an exam.
Join Date: Jan 2003

Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,254
High Wing Drifter

View Public Profile
Find More Posts by High Wing Drifter
PropstoMAX
#11
Would agree with High Wing Drifter!!
LDA >or= LDR * Wet factor * Surface factor * 1.43
LDA >or= LDR * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.43
LDA >or= LDR * 1.89
Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: UK
Posts: 13
23rd February 2005, 20:05
oceanicclarence
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 23
#14
ATPL met question
Hi Guys. im studying for the ATPL by distance learning (just
started). and im tearing my hair out on a particular question.
Its been a long day and maybe im being a doofus, but maybe
you guys can point me in the right direction. I dont expect
you to give the answer, id only be cheating myself!
a 10,000 foot mountain has a 5,000 foot cloudbase to
windward and a 7,000 cloudbase to the lee. if the windward
temp is +20 degrees C what would be the likely temp to the
lee?
now my working was, assuming temp decrease @ DALR to
5,000, then decrease @ SALR to 10,000, then increase @ salr
to 7000, then increase @ DALR back to surface, you come up
with+23 degrees C !
the options for answers are
a-22.4
b-16.8
c-20.4
d-25.6 !!!!!
where the smeg am I going wrong ?!
of the possible answers 22.4 is the closest, do they add a
little for the temp drop over the top of the mountain?
however much that may be? or have I got some basic thing
wrong? is there anything in the word 'likely' temp? that

doesnt sound too specific !!!
am really enjoying my study by the way!!!
pressman
#16
it's the foehn effect they are examining here ,
Over 150 posts! About time I

clicked here and ordered a
Personal Title.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 190
USE the DALR up to 5000 then(decreasing) the salr all the way
from 5000 on the wind side to the top ,then increasing by salr to
7000 on the lee side and then DALR to the surface
You should come up with 22.4
regards
pressman
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pressman
oceanicclarence
another number' I could
order a Personal Title and
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 23
#17
thanks guys. the company im with says 3 degrees C for DALR and 1.5
degrees SALR. also, Pressman.....how??? I did that and got 23
degrees.
temp at 5000 feet windward 5 degrees, decreasing to minus 2.5 at
10,000. then back to plus 2 at 7000 feet on the lee and increasing at
DALR (3degrees per 1000 feet) back to surface. i just cant get the
point something or other, can you show how ? many thanks once
again.
24th February 2005,

04:58
Pack2
order a Personal Title
and help support
PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United
Kingdom
Posts: 48
#19
Your working should look something like this.
20-(5x3)=5-(5x1.8)=-4+(3x1.8)=1.4+(7x3)=22.4
It is important to remember that the SALR is not constant as we gain
altitude. Latent heat is released as condensation occurs and the SALR
value actually increases and eventually could equal the DALR
We can debate this till the cows come home but at the end of the day the
CAA say that the SALR is 1.8 degrees per thousand feet.
Your thinking was perfectly correct. 1.8 is the number to remember.
fohn wind
This is easier!
Warming temperature =
1.5 times the difference in cloud bases ( in thousands of feet),
7000 - 5000 = 2 x 1.5 = 3
Add to the temperature on the windward side, 3 + 20 = 23.
You'll never get closer than that without wasting valuable exam time!
All donations gratefully received.........
gemini76
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by gemini76
pugzi
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Uk
Posts: 110
#22
Time!
This type of question for JAA ATPL is a waste of time, so trying to do it
quicker is a waste of time too. If JAA ever ask this type of question, I'll
eat my hat!.
All you need to know about Foehn for the JAA is this.
Warmer on ther lee side, higher cloud on the lee side, possible
turbulence on lee side (from possible mountain waves) and you need
to know the other names for the Foehn, e.g Santa Ana and Chinook.
Now for some lovely spuriouis info. The Foehn translated actually
means "Hair dryer" in some European languages, so remember it as a
warm dry descending wind, or a warm katabatic.
One more thing, if your School is using 1.5C per 1000ft for the SALR
in their ATPL notes they need shooting and they need to be reminded
of the JAA METEOROLOGY OBJECTIVES.
Good luck anyway, met can be a nightmare unless your taught right,
wait till you get to winds!!!
Have fun
pugzi
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pugzi
24th February 2005,
19:58
oceanicclarence
#23
thanks once again guys, very much appreciated. I can see now that if id
used 1.8 instead of the 1.5 that is EVERYWHERE in my manuals (its even
in Trevor Thom for gawds sake!) then id have got the answer. will be more
wary in future.

and help support
PPRuNe
take care and fly safe.
Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: uk
Posts: 23
1st March 2005, 09:06
PGT
#29
Not an easy task, but we try to please
I've been going on about pictures for ages when it comes to these
questions, so I'm gonna make you draw a picture.
Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: wiltshire
Posts: 17
Draw a horizontal line and label it "QNH sea level 998hpa"

Draw another above it and label that, "height of obstacle". Label
the distance between these two lines as 2000ft.
Draw another line above the "height of obstacle" line and label the
distance from the "height of abstacle" line to this new line as
1000ft.
Your true distance must be 3000ft above the sea for you to clear
the obstacle by 1000ft. This is obvious to see. The ditance from the
bottom line, to the top line.
What we need to work out is the indicated distance (why they are
different is gonna take an essay, or 2 secs with an instructor)
Use this formulae.
For every 1C ISA deviation your altimeter will be in error from the
true altitude by 4ft in every 1000ft of pressure altitude.
Lets work out pressure altitude (the height above 1013.2hpa) so
that we can start to use this formulae.
Draw another line under the "QNH sea level 998" line and label this
as "1013.2hpa". The distance between this line and the QNH line is
405ft (27ft x 15 hpa). So the pressure altitude of an aircraft that
needs to clear the obstacle is 3405ft. Please don't look at the
diagram again cos it'll start to mess with your head. We have all we
need now from it.
OK, we have 19C ISA deviation in the example and we have 3.405
thousands of feet pressure altitude. Now we can use that formulae.
So, 19C deviation x 4ft gives an error per 1000ft of 76ft. But, we
have 3.405 thousands of feet.
So, 76 x 3.405 gives a total error of 258ft.
When it's cold the true altitude (in our case 3000ft) is always less
than the indicated altitude, so indicated altitude on QNH must be
3000ft plus 258ft.
Hope this helps.
I did try
Steve Francis
Last edited by PGT : 1st March 2005 at 09:47.
PGT
View Public Profile

Find More Posts by PGT
1st March 2005,
12:19
Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-onSea
Age: 33
Posts: 6,201
#30
Errmmmm, PGT (and pugzi), you must only correct for the depth of
indicated altitude, not for the pressure altitude, so that's 3,000 feet not
3,405. You are correcting for 405 feet of sea! The PA is only used for finding
the temperature deviation.
ISA is closer to 8 than 9 at 3400 feet! ISA deviation is -18. Sorry to be
pedantic, but to avoid confusion. I suspect you got your two altitudes the
wrong way round in the calculation, as that would account for both errors.
Subsidence
If this was using a real QNH measured at the top of the obstacle you would
be right. As it is this question uses the horrible (and incorrect) term
"Regional QNH". Regional pressure setting is not a QNH at all, nor based on
them, hence the military do not allow their pilots to use the term "Regional
QNH"! It is calculated from QFFs*, which are corrected for off-ISA
temperature. It is also probably calculated from measurements well below
the elevation of the obstruction, so even using a QNH you must account for
temperature between where the QNH is measured and the aircraft, not the
obstruction height and the aircraft.
Hope this clarifies!
Send Clowns
*Regional pressure setting is the lowest QFF forecast in the region over the
following 2 hours, and is valid for 1 hour.
subsidence
another number' I
could order a Personal
Title and help support
PPRuNe
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Miami
Posts: 33

Found this question:
You're flying with 1.4 x Vs. What is the maximum bank angle before stall
occurs?
a) 60
b) 30
c) 32
d) 44
I keep getting answer a) 60 but my feedback marks d) as the right one.
Can anyone help me?
subsidence
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by subsidence
25th March 2005, 22:41
Dnathan
#58
By memory I believe that the stall speed increases with load factor
according to these key numbers:

Personal Title and help
support PPRuNe
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 24
Posts: 15
30
45
60
75
bank
bank
bank
bank
about
about
about
about
7%
19%
41%
100%
And at 60 bank the load factor is 2 (2G), so i would also go with

your conclusion.
Dnathan
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dnathan
25th March 2005, 23:36
ATP_Al
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Age: 24
Posts: 129
#59
To answer the question you need to know two things:
(1) Stall speed increases by the square root of the load factor
(2) In a turn, load factor can be calculated using the formula:
load factor = 1/(cos angle of bank)
Firstly we work out what load factor we would need to stall at 1.4 Vs:
1.4 x 1.4 = 2. Now we know that the load factor required is 2, we can
work out the angle of bank that would achieve that load factor. If we
rearrange the formula we get: cos angle of bank = 1/load factor; 1/2 =
0.5. Cos-1 0.5 = 60, so (a) is the correct answer.
If you you forget that stall speed increases by the square root of the
load factor, rather than the load factor itself, then you get answer (d).
Hope that helps
Al
ATP_Al
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ATP_Al
6th April 2005, 08:28
#60
escobar

When do you use a non-radar separation of 5nm?
When do you use a radar separation of 5nm?
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 77
Can't remember which one the question asked, i think it was non radar
separation
a)heavy heavy, think its 4nm
b)medium heavy
c)light heavy
d)light medium
Better answered probably on the air tragic forum.

However from memory:
Radar sep. normally 5nm, but can be less if the radar system is approved and the a/c is
within 50nm of the radar head. Also sep. on final approach will generally be less than 5nm,
but this is wake vortex sep. not lateral sep.
WX Man
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by WX Man
19th April 2005, 19:20
TolTol
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Block
Posts: 101
#62
Hi, could I have peoples opinions on the following question:
An aircraft is descending from FL410 to FL270 at the cruise Mach
number. It then continues to descend from FL270 to FL100 at the IAS
reached at FL270. Assume that the engines are idling, the configuration
is clean and ignore any compressibility effect.
How does the angle of descent change in those two height bands
respectivily:
a) increases, decreases
b) increases, remains constant
c) decreases, increases
d) remains constant, decreases
Any ideas? Thanks alot
TolTol
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TolTol
19th April 2005, 20:28
#63
G SXTY
(b) increases, remains constant.
Supercharged
PPRuNer
Descent at constant mach # means increasing IAS, thus decreasing CL

and increasing descent angle. Switching to constant IAS means constant
CL, and constant descent angle.
Join Date: Nov 2000

Location: Land of the
white sock
Posts: 607
Do I win 5?
23rd May 2005, 15:19
#66
Reverand Lovejoy

Please don't grill me as I've tried to fid the details in GETMET and other
order a Personal Title and sources but what does the AUTO and NDV mean in this METAR as I
haven't seen this before.
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Leeds
Age: 24
Posts: 61
EGPU 231450Z AUTO 20003KT 9999NDV // BKN022 SCT044 10/04

Q1004
Thanks for your help
The Reverand
Reverand Lovejoy
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Reverand Lovejoy
23rd May 2005, 15:30
#67
2Donkeys
Over 1000 posts and I obviously
don't want a Personal Title which I
could get just by clicking here.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL482046
Posts: 1,073
AUTO (surprise surprise), this METAR was produced by a

machine, rather than by a person.
NDV means "No Directional Variations" available. Ordinarily,
in conditions of restricted visibility, an observer may indicate
the direction in which the visibility is either best or worst. In
this case, no such distinction is available. 9999 in all
directions.
2D
2Donkeys
View Public Profile
Visit 2Donkeys's homepage!
Find More Posts by 2Donkeys
15th June 2005, 10:17
G-SP0T
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 113
#68
At CAS 250kts, FL390, JSA +8*C what is the TAS?
A)439
B)482
C)458
D)464
The ans is given as 464kts, but I keep getting 482... the only way to
get to 464 is to use ISA values for the temp, am i right in thinking the
temp in this question is
-55? or have i messed up because its the JSA???
Confussed???!!!
G-SP0T
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by G-SP0T
15th June 2005, 10:38
#69
oxford blue
I suspect that you are not applying the correction for compressibility.
Over 250 posts so far.

Perhaps I should click
here and order a Personal
Title
JSA +8 @ FL390 is -55C, as you say. That gives 482 knots before
correction for compressibility (with a CRP-5 - you may find that an ARC2
gives a slightly different answer).
Join Date: Feb 2002

Location: oxford
Posts: 252
With compressibility corrected,the answer comes to about 463 or 464.

If your FTO has not shown you how to correct for compressibility, read
the little booklet that comes with the flight computer.
28th June 2005, 12:37
#71
G-SP0T
inst question

help support PPRuNe
the interception of a ILS beam by the auto pilot takes place :

A)according to a interception verces range and angle
B)at a constant heading
Join Date: Dec 2004

Location: uk
Posts: 113
The white arc of the EGT gauge is:

A)special op range
b)normal op range
G-SP0T
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by G-SP0T
28th June 2005, 14:41
Gillespie
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 95
#72
Hi there,
1. a
2. a
Been a while since I studied for the Instruments exam, but I do
remember these questions and I'm fairly confident in my answers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong
21st July 2005, 14:54
#75
aerosteve

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: scotland
Posts: 19
anyone answer this for me ? and why?

for a jet cruising at 1.32 vimd a 5% decrease in weight would
give a change of fuel flow by approx:
10% decrease
5% decrease
5% increase
2.5% decrease
cheers..
aerosteve
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by aerosteve
21st July 2005, 17:49
#76
fullrich
1.32 vmd

help support PPRuNe
Fuel flow at 1.32 vmd will decrease at the square root of the change
in weight or (for small changes half the change.)
Join Date: Oct 2003

Location: Mainland
Posts: 25
At VMD the change would be equal
hense 2.5%
At VMP the change would be squared(doubled for small change)
Fullrich
13th August 2005, 18:30
zssp
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: location
Posts: 13
#78
hey guys and gals ...
I faild instruments becasue of this question. Does anyone know how 2
answer it, because my father and i and a few other guys have no
clue!!
here it goes ...
An aircraft flies a mesured course of 5NM between two pylons at
7000ft palt ., temp 15deg celcisus in 2min45sec. flying the revers in
2min19sec
if the asi was 100kts the asi error was
(A) 1kts under read

(B) 3kts over read
(C) 3kts under read
thanx hope sumone can help
sean
Last edited by zssp : 13th August 2005 at 20:02.
zssp
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by zssp
13th August 2005,
19:21
Rainboe
Warning Toxic!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire,
UK
Posts: 1,492
#79
Are you certain you have made no typographical errors in the numbers?
I think it is begging for this:
Total track miles......... 10 miles.
Total time...................2.45 + 2.15=5.00
Therefore TAS 120kts ->
A circular slide rule should make this easy- it's not to hand, so I have had
to resort to complicated corrections below.
From "Mathematically increase your indicated airspeed (IAS) by 2% per
thousand feet of altitude to obtain the true airspeed (TAS)." and to allow for
temperature error, "when changing IAS to TAS you need to add one knot to
your Indicated airspeed (IAS) for each five or six degrees the temp is above
standard day, at altitudes from 5,000 to 15,000
ft"(http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html) and
(http://www.sonic.net/~pjkelly/tswinds.html)
So, TAS is higher than IAS by 14% for Pressure Altitude correction, or
Pressure corrected IAS=106 kts(106+14%=120), then subtract 3 kts for
temperature error (because ISA at 7000' is +1 deg C, ie we are flying at
ISA+14deg C), ie IAS should be 103kts, but it is actually 100kts, so it is
underreading by 3.
Now PLEASE can we have a look at your grammar?
Last edited by Rainboe : 13th August 2005 at 19:56.
Ibanez
another number' I
could order a Personal
Title and help support
PPRuNe
Uuuhh??? Correct me if I'm wrong, but applying wind to TAS gives you
ground speed, not a different IAS. I can't see that your Avcom man's
reasoning is correct - but then again, I might be wrong. Rainboe's
reasoning makes more sense.
Using your Aristo, you can see that at that height, and temp with 100 IAS,
your TAS should be 113kts (as shown by your Avcom man). However, your
real TAS is 120kts (109kts out and 130kts back with 11kts wind
Join Date: Dec 2004

Location: UK
Posts: 46
component). Therefor, using your Aristo, 120Kts TAS equates to a CAS of

105Kts. This gives you a 5kt under read. That would be my reasoning, but
it seems as though my answer is incorrect.
CHEERS!!!
I
Last edited by Ibanez : 14th August 2005 at 14:10.
Ibanez
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ibanez
14th August 2005,
13:57
Old Smokey
Over 1000 posts and I
obviously don't want a
Personal Title which I
could get just by clicking
here.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,162
#84
zssp, Sean,
If indeed you did fail instruments because of this question, then you have
a good case to protest - none of the answers are correct.
Please forgive the degree of decimal places, included so that this can be
proven conclusively.
The basic mathematics indicate that the said time intervals may only be
achieved at a TAS of 119.293656 Kt, and a Wind Component of
-10.20274691 Kt on the first leg, and conversly +10.20274691 Kt on the
second, i.e. a Groundspeed outbound of 109.0909091 Kt, and
129.4964029 on return. Apply these Ground Speeds to the 5 nm
between pylons without ANY rounding off of the results 5 nm at G/S 109.0909091 = 2:45 EXACTLY
5 nm at G/S 129.4964029 = 2:19 EXACTLY
OK, a TAS of 119.293656 Kt is proven. At 7000 feet Pressure Height and
a Static Air Temperature of +15C. To achieve the quoted TAS in these
conditions requires EAS 104.79, Mach No. 0.1803, or, importantly for
you, a CAS of 104.8868949.
Thus, if the flight is conducted at 100 KIAS, the ASI is UNDERREADING by 4.8868949 Kt, 5 Kt between friends.
NONE of the answers are correct. Protest the result Sean, protest!
Regards,
Old Smokey
16th August 2005,

00:26
Old Smokey
obviously don't want a
Personal Title which I
#89
zssp , Congratulations on your pass.
Cron, unfortunately it cannot be done that way, because as a percentage
penalty or gain, the same Wind Component has a greater effect upon time
as a Headwind than when a Tailwind. Thus, the solution can not be found
could get just by

clicking here.
by taking the total distance against the total time, the TAS will always
come out on the low side.
Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,162
Consider a 100 Kt TAS over a 100 mile course. In nil wind, it comes out at
60 minutes both directions, so far so good, but now insert a 20 Kt
Headwind outbound, which becomes 20 Kt Tailwind for the reverse direction
100 nm at G/S 80 Kt = 75 minutes (EXACTLY)

100 nm at G/S 120 Kt = 50 minutes (EXACTLY)
Now, if we use your technique of total distance against total time, thats
200 nm in 125 minutes = 96 Knots Wrong, we knew in advance that the
TAS = 100 Kt.
Now, if instead we calculated the G/S in both directions, and found the
mean, we would have the answer
100 nm in 75 minutes = G/S 80
100 nm in 50 minutes = G/S 120
Mean G/S = (80 + 120) / 2 = 100 Kts Correct!
(All of the above assumes of course, that there was no drift, because any
drift will effectively increase the Headwind and decrease the Tailwind).
Its because of this type of reasoning that we need to use a more complex
formula in calculating PNRs, than simply taking half of the useable
endurance to be used on the outward leg.
Regards,
Old Smokey
from a W/V problem you obtain a 50kt headwind component, this will *not* automatically
turn into a 50kt tailwind component.
Let me do an example.
TAS 400 Knots
HDG 090 (T)
W/V 060 / 40 Knots
Safe Endurance: 7 Hours
What would the distance to the Point of Safe Return (PSR) be?
So: PSR = ( Ground Speed Home * Safe Endurance ) / ( Ground Speed Home + Ground
Speed Out )
Firstly we will need to find out the Groundspeed Out and Groundspeed Home. We'll need
the CRP-5 for this.
Put the central blue dot over the TAS of 400 knots. Then under the Index put 060. Mark 40
knots down from 400, so that'll be a mark on 360 knots. This is the W/V done.
Now rotate the wheel so that 090 is under the Index. This will give you the drift so we
should have 3 degree starboard drift, the heading will thus be 087 degrees and the
groundspeed will be 365 knots.
To obtain the groundspeed home:
The track home would be 270, this will give us 3 degrees of port drift and thus the heading
will be 273 degrees. The groundspeed will be 433 (not much of a difference in this
example).
Groundspeed Out: 365
Groundspeed Home: 433
PSR = ( 433 * 7 ) / ( 365 + 433 ) = 3031 / 798 = 3.798245614
For the distance would be 3.798245614 hours * 365 Knots GS
PSR = 1386.36nm
I would second subscribing to the Bristol Online Quesiton bank. Fantastic value for money.
Best wishes,
Charlie Zulu.
Charlie Zulu
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Charlie Zulu
29th August 2005, 21:32
Martin1234
Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps
I should click here and order a
Personal Title
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 291
#106
"Now rotate the wheel so that 090 is under the Index. This will give
you the drift so we should have 3 degree starboard drift, the
heading will thus be 087 degrees and the groundspeed will be 365
knots."
I assume that you mean true track?
If you already know the true track you can use your calculator to
solve the problem. It's very convenient for some other type of
questions as well, as below.
Take the angle difference between the wind direction and your
tail/headwind (take the one they ask for). Use cos on that angle
and multiply the value you get by the actual wind. Voila!
Example:
You are to land on runway 22 and your wind is 290/20 (magnetic).
What is your headwind component?
290 - 220 = 70 degrees
cos(70) = 0,34202
20 knots * 0,34202 = 6.84 knots
Martin1234
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Martin1234
30th August 2005, 09:21
#107
Charlie Zulu
I've only made a few posts so
I don't feel the need to order
a Personal Title and help
support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 29
Posts: 686
Yup I kept it all true tracks / headings in the example above to keep
it simple.
Of course when dealing with runway crosswinds / headwinds one
can use a calculator (I did in the exam and its MUCH quicker).
Headwind is a function of cos (cos 0 degrees is 1).
Crosswind is a function of sin (sin 90 degrees is 1).
eg.
Crosswind = Wind speed * sin 70 degrees difference
Headwind = Wind speed * cos 70 degrees difference
2nd September 2005, 16:19
Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Age: 33
Posts: 6,201
#112
You are used to the question giving the difference between TAS
and G/S as a wind component. This wind component is simply
added to or subtracted from the TAS to find the groundspeed. This
is rather a simplification of the issue, to reduce the complexity of
the question.
In this example the wind component is not given. Instead you are
given wind direction and speed and the desired track to fly
outbound. Obviously for a PSR the return track must be the
reciprocal of the outbound track.
In this case to calculate the groundspeed, instead of just adding or
subtracting a given component you need to work on the CRP-5,
the vector-calculator side. All instructions assume you use the
wind-down method.
1. Place a wind mark (turn the wind direction to the "True
Heading" arrow, count down from the centre bug by the wind
speed and place a small cross)
2. Place the centre bug on the TAS
3. Turn the outbound track to the "True Heading" arrow - note this
is only an approximate heading as it is the required track.
4. Find the drift under the wind cross.
5. Turn the track (towards the wind cross for the first turn) until
the track sits against the drift on the drift ark at the top
corresponding to the drift under the wind cross.
6. Check the drift under the wind cross, and repeat step 5 and this
step if required.
7. Read the groundspeed under the wind cross
Note this groundspeed as "O", the outbound G/S.
Repeat steps 3 to 7 using the return track, note the groundspeed
as "H", the homebound groundspeed.
Use O and H in the PSR formula.
Notice that with any crosswind component the difference between
groundspeed and TAS is not the same on reciprocal tracks, i.e. the
wind components are not the same but negative as they so often
are on exam questions.
For example, imagine a tailwind, not a direct tailwind but a
tailwind from the left, on the outbound leg. The aircraft would be
heading left of track to account for drift, reducing the tailwind
component. Reversing track the wind is a headwind from the right.
The aircraft would be turned a little right to account for drift,

increasing the headwind component. Therefore any headwind
component will always be greater than the tailwind component on
a reciprocal track, unless the wind is straight down the track when
they are equal.
Try this example (from the JAA question bank):
Wind 045/50kts
Track 090 out (so 270 home)
TAS 180 kts
How far can you go out and return within 1 hour?
Find groundspeeds, use the PSR formula with an endurance of 1
hour.
You should find groundspeeds of about 141 kts out, 212 kts home
(within 1 kt) and a distance of 85 nm (within 1 nm).
Send Clowns
Gen Nav
BCFT
P.S. Although we can offer the brush up too, I can recommend
Steve as a good bloke to get help through.
Send Clowns
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Send Clowns
6th September 2005, 13:37
#113
berserker
Icing question?

PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: scandinavia
Posts: 18
I am currently reading up on aircraft icing and I want to clearify

one thing. If asked to hold, would you rather hold over water or
would you hold over land to avoid icing? I have been given very
weak answers from my friends so far. Can anyone help me with
this?
berserker
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by berserker
6th September 2005,
17:46
High Wing Drifter

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,254
#114
You will only get icing (with the exception of hoar) in visible moisture.
Essentially, you will get the most serious icing in cumuliform clouds,
so you are looking at staying out of convecting air. Will it convect over
water or land? Depends where in the World you are and what time of
year and day it is.
If you include orographic convection in the equation then I suppose

you would want to stay away from hills and hence the land, but that
seems a tad tenuous to me.
If you consider what actions you would need to take if you experience
heavy icing, then I suppose over sea is better because you can
descend lower to warmer air.
If you are thinking of warm front icing then it makes no difference,
because the theoretically best action is to climb into the warm air.
If the choice is the mid Atlantic or the Central Asia then there would
obviously be less moisture over the huge land mass. But that seems
to me to be a stupid comparison.
Like you say, seems very weak to me.
Any body else with any ideas?
8th October 2005, 17:41
A320sRcool
support PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EEC
Posts: 28
#152
ATPL Meteorology Question ISA
I found this question in Feedback
During a flight at FL135
true alt is 13500 Local QNH 1019
Air mass is colder than ISA ... how come- should it not be warmer
than ISA if QNH is 1019 at FL135
A320sRcool
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by A320sRcool
8th October 2005, 20:00
#153
Charlie Zulu
Hi A320',

support PPRuNe
As 1019 is higher than 1013, we shall need to add 27' * 6hPa =

162' onto 13,500 to give us our altitude above sea level. This gives
us 13,662' above sea level.
Join Date: Jun 2002

Age: 29
Posts: 686
However the question states that our "true" altitude is 13,500'.

As the true altitude is less than our altitude above sea level (true
altitude of 13,500 as opposed to 13,662), the temperature must be
colder than ISA.
Remember, if the column of air below you is colder than ISA then
you are lower than the altitude above sea level. If the air is warmer
than ISA then your true altitude will be higher than that indicated.
Best wishes,
Charlie Zulu.
8th October 2005, 21:57
Dick Whittingham
Personal Title.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 200
#155
Easy tiger! The question does not say it is 1019 at FL135. It says
you are at FL135 and the local QNH is 1019. It also adds that air
mass temp is less than ISA
QNH is a theoretical pressure at sea level, calculated as though ISA
temps apply and so that your altimeter will read correctly at your
datum height. In this case datum height is msl, but if QNH were
given as an airfield QNH the datum height would be the airfield
elvation.
So, point one. Your altimeter is measuring height from the 1013
pressure level when it should be measuring from the sea level 1019
pressure level, so you have a baro error to take out, as already
explained
Point two. Even with the baro error corrected your altimeter will still
be overreading if the air mass temp is below ISA, so there is a
further error that brings your true height down to 13,500ft. Or, put
it the other way, if you true height is down to 13,500ft the air must
be colder.
The pressure at 13,500ish will be well below 1013 or 1019, more in
the 600hpa region.
I have re-read this and recognise it as a long winded versio of what
Charlie Zuylu has already said
Dick Whittingham
Dick Whittingham
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dick Whittingham
12th October 2005, 14:52
A320sRcool
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EEC
Posts: 28
#156
ATPL MET Question True ALT/ temp
Flying FL 160
OAT +27c
sea level pres 1003(is this QNH?)
What is tru e Alt?
Must I 16000/27 to get 590
and - from 16000??
how come the ans is 15090 in the feedback
.. What am I doing wrong
12th October 2005, 15:25
#160
RVR800
Try this
I've only made a few posts so I

don't feel the need to order a
PPRuNe
.................well yes Global Warming indeed Number

Cruncher !
many deaths at the surface that day due to 'pollution...'
Join Date: Jan 2000

Location: UK
Posts: 731
-------------------------Relationship of true and calibrated (indicated) altitude:

TA= CA + (CA-FE)*(ISADEV)/(273+OAT)
where
TA= True Altitude above sea-level
FE= Field Elevation of station providing the altimeter setting
CA= Calibrated altitude= Altitude indicated by altimeter
when set to the
altimeter setting, corrected for calibration error.
ISADEV= Average deviation from standard temperature from
standard in the air
column between the station and the aircraft (in C)
OAT= Outside air temperature (at altitude)
sorry its - 27c

RVR 800 --- thats is definition of all codes but not method for working out this type of
question but thanks for your help
RVR I didnt read ur reply properly sorry ,, just realised ur method- ta will try
RVR - what if the question doesnt give me FE what do I do then........
A320sRcool
View Public Profile
12th October 2005, 15:35
#162
Number Cruncher
OK

Personal Title.
The equation is as such:
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: London
Posts: 150
16,000 - (16*4*-10) - ((1013-1003)*27) = 15,090

16,000 is the altitude
(16*4*-10) (16) is the flight level abbreviated to the first 1 or 2
digits. Multiply this by (4c). (4c for every 1,000ft). Multiply it by the
ISA temp dev'n (-10), in this case at 16,000 the temp should be
-10, but its -27.
Second part of the equation is 1013 as used for FL's, then adjust it
for the actual QNH, 1003, and multiply it by the standard 27.
Use this formula for all these types of Q's.

Good luck
Last edited by Number Cruncher : 12th October 2005 at

15:47.
12th October 2005, 21:47
Frolic
Hi,

support PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Luebeck
(LBC/EDHL), Germany
Age: 21
Posts: 8
#166
first you have to do pressure correction with: 27ft / 1 hPa

So Pressure at FL160 is 1013,25. Pressure difference is 10 hPa. So
difference is 270ft.
16000ft - 270ft = 15730ft
After that you have to do temperature correction. ISA Temperature
in FL160 would be -17C. OAT is -27C. Difference is 10C.
Formula for temperature correction is 0,4% per 1C: 0,4% * 10C
= 4% of 15730ft = 629ft which have to be substracted from
15730ft because it's colder than ISA.
So result must be 15101ft.
Hopefully. If not please correct me.
Oh now I see that your qquestion was answered in a previous
thread? so why dou you ask again? :-)
Last edited by Frolic : 12th October 2005 at 22:01.
13th October 2005,

07:32
powdermonkey
Over 250 posts so far.
Perhaps I should click
here and order a
Personal Title
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin/France
Age: 37
Posts: 290
#170
Gen Nav question, Heeeeelp?
Hi all, anyone figure this one out for me?
A route is being plotted on a Lamberts Chart using a grid aligned with the
Greenwich meridian. The aircraft is at 49 S 100 E tracking 100 G. The
convergence factor for the chart is 0.75, variation is 10 E, deviation is 4 E
and drift is 7 right. The aircraft s true track is:
(a) 011
(b) 008
(c) 018
(d) 025
Ans is 25, but is my working out of it correct.
If the convergence factor is .75 and the chlong between datum and 100E
is 100dgs, then the convergency between datum and 100E is 75dgs.
Diff between grid and true track is the convergency between the datum
meridian and that point, ie 75dgs, therefore 100 -75 is 25?

So all the deviation, drift and variation is to confuse you?
Be nice to have this clarified, thanks for any comments
Powdermonkey
My exams are next week....... and this one I simply can't get.
Would be thankfull if someone could show me how to approach this one.
Cheers
Old Smokey
First you must find the QNH correction for two purposes -

obviously don't want a Personal (1) Establish the Sea Level Pressure Height to ascertain the ISA
Temperature there, and
Title which I could get just by
clicking here.
(2) Establish the Indicated Altitude, upon which column of air the
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,162
Temperature deviation affects in the Indicated to True Altitude

conversion.
For a QNH of 1003, the Pressure Height at Sea Level is 281.1
feet. ISA Temperature at 281.1 feet is +14.45C.
At Pressure Height 16000 feet, ISA temperature is -16.69C, and
for OAT = -27C, Temperature is ISA-10.31C.
At Pressure Height 16000 feet, for QNH = 1003, Indicated Altitude
= 16000-281.1=15718.9 feet.
The Mean ISA Temperature of the column of air is (+14.4516.69)/2 =-1.12C + 273.15 =272.03K.
The Mean Actual Temperature of the column of air is 272.03K 10.31 = 261.72K.
True Altitude = 15718.9 X 261.72 / 272.03 = 15123.2 feet.
That's very close to the standard answer of 15090 feet.
The results arrived at here were achieved using actual almospheric
values in place of the commonly used convenient approximations.
The degree of complexity was not intended as a "line shoot", but
to make three points (1) The practical day to day approximations used (30 ft/hPa, 2
per 1000 feet, etc.), whilst not exact, are good practical figures
and may be used with confidence.
(2) For Examiners - Optional answers provided MUST be exact,
with allowance for small deviation from the 'absolutely correct'
answer. It can be extremely distressing to an examinee who has
worked his/her calculation thoroughly, and finds that none of your
answers 'fit'.
(3) For Students - It's essential in your learning process that you
seek to understand WHY certain processes are involved, instead
of the all-too-common approach of simply learning how to do it
without any understanding of the factors involved. An
understanding of WHY certain phenomena occur will last you for
decades, whereas the simple rote learning of how to do it will be
receding in your mind the day after the examination.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Old Smokey
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Old Smokey
14th October 2005, 21:41
powdermonkey
Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps
I should click here and order a
Personal Title
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin/France
Age: 37
Posts: 290
#173
Hi, the way I saw it was this.
First correct for barometric error, 10 x 27 = 270ft
So your actual alt is 15730ft.
Temp at 15730 should be in ISA -16.5 dgs C
Temp is -27 at 15730ft so at that level its ISA -10.5
.4% for every dg below isa leaves at correction of 4.2%
15730 - (4.2% of 15730) = 15070ft
Is this correct? I am not sure why you guys were working out the
ISA temp deviation at FL160, it's not your actual altitude. Is this
wrong on my part? Should you first do the temp correction then
barometric?
boats
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 2
As number cruncher stated, what you will need to remember for

the exam are these two formulas:
1. First two digits of flight level x Isa Deviation x 4
Then to solve the last bit of this particular question as the QNH
is not 1013.25:
2. QNH deviation *27 - (Add or subtract depending on
whether QNH is Higher or Lower)
These will get you closest to what the JAA deem the correct
answer
20th October 2005, 00:04
A320sRcool
support PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EEC
#178
RNAV question CDI from/to
A Course Dev Indicator for a VOR selected to 90 deg
From /To indicates ''To''
CDI Needle is deflected halfway to right
What is radial of Aircraft?
a 095
b 275
Posts: 28
c085
d 265
I made it 265 as if needle is deflected to right the ac has to follow
needle until centred- am i right? so nearest deg is 085deg
radial of 085 is 265 answer (d)
In my notes the feedback ans is 275 ... how come?
A320sRcool
View Public Profile
20th October 2005, 00:22
Charlie Zulu
support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jun 2002
Age: 29
Posts: 686
#179
The VOR OBS on the instrument is set to 090 degrees and has a
"To" flag displayed.
All Radials are "FROM" the VOR.
This means that although the instrument in the aeroplane is set to
090 the actual radial set on the instrument is the 270R. You can see
this by twisting the OBS to show 270 at the top of the instrument.
You will then have a "FROM" flag.
A halfway deflection on the instrument is 5 degrees (2 degrees per
dot on the instrument face for VORs).
So as the needle is deflected right you are flying to the left of track.
If you are to the left of track that will put you on a radial greater
than 270R. 270R plus 5 degree deflection = you are flying on the
275 Radial.
Charlie Zulu
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Charlie Zulu
20th October 2005, 13:06
Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Age: 33
Posts: 6,201
#180
You don't follow needles on a CDI to intercept the inbound track you go further than the indicated deviation!
The indication is saying that you have to track right of 090 to
intercept the 090M inbound track, and that you are 5 degrees off.
Therefore if you track 5 right of 090 you are directly inbound, so
you are on a 095M inbound track, or QDM. As CZ says radials are
outbound magnetic bearings (QDRs) so you are on the reciprocal,
275.
Drag Coefficient & Lifting Line

Theory
Is there a way to estimate the drag coefficient using Thin Airfoil Theory? I know that lift coefficient is
estimated as 2*pi*alpha, but does Thin Airfoil Theory even predict a value for the drag coefficient?
- Scott
The source of the lift coefficient equation that you've cited was discussed in a previous question about the
Thin Airfoil Theory. As you imply in your question, Thin Airfoil Theory does not predict drag, only lift and
pitching moment.
However, another basic theory does provide a reasonable, first-order approximation for the drag coefficient. This
technique is called Prandtl's Lifting Line Theory. Thin Airfoil Theory is derived assuming that a wing has an infinite
span, but lifting line theory applies to a finite wing with no sweep and a reasonably large aspect ratio. In simple terms,
the wing is modeled as a fixed vortex with a series of trailing vortices extending behind it. These trailing vortices have
the effect of reducing the lift produced by the wing and creating a form of drag called induced drag.
Creation of trailing vortices due to a difference in pressure above and below a lifting surface
According to Lifting Line Theory, the lift coefficient can be calculated in the following way:
where
CL = 3D wing lift coefficient

Cl = 2D airfoil lift coefficient slope
AR = wing aspect ratio
= angle of attack in radians
Note that this equation is of the same form as that derived from Thin Airfoil Theory. In fact, the above
equation becomes identical to that predicted by Thin Airfoil Theory if we let the aspect ratio go to infinity, as
it would for an infinite wing, and if we assume the lift curve slope of the airfoil section, Cl, is the theoretical
maximum value of 2. If you know the actual lift curve slope for the airfoil on a particular aircraft you wish to
analyze, you can substitute that value for a more accurate estimate. However, 2 is usually a very close
approximation.
For example, the value 2 is used in the following graphs comparing experimental lift coefficients for two aircraft as
measured in a wind tunnel against predictions from both Thin Airfoil Theory and Lifting Line Theory. The first
comparison shows the Cessna 172 with its relatively high aspect ratio of 7.37. Note that the Lifting Line prediction is
only a slight improvement over Thin Airfoil Theory when compared to the Cessna wind tunnel data, though the slope
of the Lifting Line equation does better match that of the actual data. Also note that like Thin Airfoil Theory, the Lifting
Line model is not capable of predicting stall and only provides a good estimate of the lift up to the stall angle.
In contrast, the Lifting Line model is a significant improvement over Thin Airfoil Theory in predicting the lift
of the Lightning. As was discussed in our previous article on Thin Airfoil Theory, that approach breaks down
for aircraft with small aspect ratio wings like the Lightning, with its AR of 2.52. Even though the Lifting Line
Theory assumes an unswept wing, it still produces a good approximation of the lift produced by the
Lighting's highly swept-back wings.
Lifting Line Theory agrees so much better with the Lightning wind tunnel data than does Thin Airfoil Theory
because of the introduction of the aspect ratio, AR. This variable makes it possible to estimate the influence
of trailing vortices and their downwash on the lift of the wing. This same factor makes it possible to
approximate the induced drag that downwash creates on the wing by the following equation:
where
CDi = induced drag coefficient

Knowing the induced drag is useful, but it is only one component of the total drag acting on an aircraft. For
subsonic aircraft, the total drag is almost entirely due to the induced drag plus another form of drag called
profile drag. Combining these two forms allows us to estimate the total drag on a wing by the relationship:
where
CD = 3D wing drag coefficient

CDmin = minimum 3D wing drag coefficient
k = constant of proportionality
= ratio of induced drag to the theoretical optimum for an elliptic wing
Since many of these variables are nearly constants, the above equation can be simplified by introducing a
new constant called Oswald's efficiency factor (e) in their place:
where
CD = 3D wing drag coefficient

CDmin = minimum 3D wing drag coefficient
e = Oswald's efficiency factor
We now have a useful equation for estimating the drag of an aircraft. The minimum drag coefficient, CDmin,
can be estimated relatively easily. A good value to use is around 0.025 for subsonic aircraft and 0.045 for
aircraft operating faster than the speed of sound. Values for a variety of aircraft in cruise configuration, as
measured in wind tunnel experiments, are compared in the following table.
Minimum Drag Coefficients
Aspect
Aircraft
Type
CDmin
Ratio
RQ-2 Pioneer
Single piston-engine UAV
9.39
0.0600
North American
Single piston-engine general
6.20
0.0510
Navion
aviation
Cessna 172/182
Single piston-engine general
7.40
0.0270
aviation
Cessna 310
Twin piston-engine general
7.78
0.0270
aviation
Marchetti S-211
Single jet-engine military
5.09
0.0205
trainer
Cessna T-37
Twin jet-engine military trainer
6.28
0.0200
Beech 99
Twin turboprop commuter
7.56
0.0270
Cessna 620
Four piston-engine transport
8.93
0.0322
Learjet 24
Twin jet-engine business jet
5.03
0.0216
Lockheed Jetstar
Four jet-engine business jet
5.33
0.0126
F-104 Starfighter
Single jet-engine fighter
2.45
0.0480
F-4 Phantom II
Twin jet-engine fighter
2.83
0.0205 (subsonic)
0.0439 (supersonic)
Lightning
Twin jet-engine fighter
2.52
0.0200
Convair 880
Douglas DC-8
Boeing 747
X-15
Four jet-engine airliner

Hypersonic research plane
7.20
7.79
6.98
2.50
0.0240
0.0188
0.0305
0.0950
The efficiency factor, e, varies for different aircraft, but it doesn't change very much. As a general rule, high-wing
planes tend to have an efficiency factor around 0.8 while that of low-wing planes is closer to 0.6. A reasonable
average to use for most planes is about 0.75.
The equation we have derived is also sometimes expressed in the following form, where the factors in the
denominator of the CL2 term are combined into yet another new constant called K.
Assuming a typical value for aspect ratio of around 6 and an efficiency factor of 0.75, the value of K turns out to be
about 0.07.
We now have equations to estimate the lift as a function of angle of attack and equations to estimate drag as a
function of lift. It is simple to combine the two to produce an equation for drag as a function of angle of attack.
Regardless of whether we use the Thin Airfoil approximation for the lift coefficient or the Lifting Line method, we get
an equation of the form:
When graphed as a function of angle of attack, the drag coefficient tends to look like a parabola. It therefore makes
sense that drag increases with the square of angle of attack in the above equation.
Examples comparing the experimental drag coefficients of the Cessna 172 and the Lightning against the
results predicted by Lifting Line Theory are presented above. Note that the lifting line approximation
matches up against the wind tunnel results quite well.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 11 July 2004
Related Topics:
Ok guys (&girls), so you are going to maintain the last assigned heading for 3 mins and
crash into a hill?
Gotta be 1 also
Should an aircraft communications failure occur while the aircraft is being vectored on one
of these approaches, separately or as part of a STAR, the pilot is expected to comply with
the communications failure procedure by selecting the transponder to Mode A/3 Code 7600
immediately. Pilots should always be aware of the traffic situation. For example, ATC may
have indicated that your aircraft was second for an approach to Runway 06L; under these
circumstances, the flight should be continued along the route that normally would have
been expected under radar vectoring. In some cases of communications failure, pilots may
need to dead reckon, or DR, a route to the final approach course. It is important to other
aircraft and ATC for the aircraft experiencing a communications failure to continue the
flight along a route that would permit the aircraft to conduct a straight-in approach and
landing without unexpected manuvring. Pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in
these cases. Unexpected manuvres, such as turns away from the final approach course,
may cause traffic disruptions and conflicts.
If the communications failure occurs while being vectored at a radar vectoring altitude that
is lower than a published IFR altitude (e.g., minimum sector altitude 25 NM), the pilot shall
immediately climb to and maintain the appropriate minimum IFR altitude until arrival at a
fix associated with the instrument procedure.
Modern technology has introduced new on-board communications capabilities, such as
airborne telephone communications. Pilots who are confronted with an aircraft
communications failure may, if circumstances permit, use this new on-board technology to
establish communications with the appropriate ATC units. NAV CANADA publishes the
phone numbers of ACCs, control towers, and FSS units in the CFS.
RAC - 6.0 INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) GENERAL
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/pu.../6-1.htm#6-3-2
GO FOR 2 OR LOSE A MARK, THINK LOGICALLY FOLKS!!
also, remember 3 mins at jet speed of 210 kts (slow and clean ie no flap etc) or 3.5nmls /
min = 10 miles or well on your way to being out of the Min Safety Area altitude.....Its
obvious its 2, anyone going for 1 needs to redo their license.

BTW, only been doing it for over 20 yrs, so thats my cred on the answer!!
DTTogaLI
Instead of being 'just another number' I could order a Personal Title and
help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: U.E.
Posts: 18
Ground School
Exam Questions
A piece of the
airplane fails while
still parked. The
reference document
you use to decide
the procedure to
follow is: minimum
equipement list
A piece of the
airplane fails while
taxiing.The
reference document
you use in the first
place to decide the
procedure to follow
is:operations
manual chapter
Abnormal and
emergency
procedures
Following an
indications of
unserviceability
while taxi to the
holding point, what
you consult first?
minimum
equipement list
Isnt someting
wrong? Could
someone tell me
why the difference
in procedures
between parked
and taxiing? tnx
No doubt someone will post the official eurocratic answer, but ask yourself what you
would do if, say, you had an APU fire warning whilst taxying? Would you mess around
trying to find out whether you could accept no APU for flight by looking in the MEL? Or
would you first follow the Abnormal/Emergency checklist for APU fire?
BEagle
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BEagle
8th March 2006, 19:34
#302
degothia
Ground School Exam Questions

Hello!
order a Personal Title and I need help with a question in Principles of Flight
help support PPRuNe
"Full span Kreuger flaps will.......... lateral stability?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 15 feet amsl
Posts: 17
A) Improve
B) Incerase
C) Increase or decrease depending on speed
D) Not affect"
The corect answer is C) acording to the test but I have dificulties finding
an explenation in my Oxford/Jeppesen book. Any sugestions on where I
can read about this and other ATPL related subjects would be much
apreciated. (Or just make it easy on me and give me the staight up cus
Im very tierd right now... )
Thanks
D.
degothia
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by degothia
9th March 2006, 12:12
Dick Whittingham
#303
Strange question! No trace of this in any feedback I have seen.
Over 150 posts! About time

Normally Kreuger flaps are mounted on the root section of swept
I clicked here and ordered
wings, where their function is to 1. increase lift and then 2. stall the
a Personal Title.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 200
root before the tips to check the normal tendency of swept wings to go
nose up at the stall.
Any experts out there?
Dick W
1st April 2006, 20:23
ask26
PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 60
#319
Ground School Exam Questions
Hi there, I have 4 that I was wondering if people could help with:
1) An aircraft with a high Design Limit Load Factor allows a
manufacturer to design for a smaller stick force/g
=== True or False
2) The stick force/g is a limit in use of an aircraft; the pilot can
check this out in the flight manual.
=== True or False
3) Where is the discontinuity plane in a normal shockwave?
=== Normal to the surface
=== Normal to the relative airflow
4) Does a bow wave form at M=1.0 or just above Mach 1.0
2nd April 2006, 09:33
Grass strip basher

and help support
PPRuNe
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 99
#320
Not sure on the first two but think the answers to the third one is normal
to the airflow and the last one is just above mach 1 (according to answers
to feedback questions I have done)... but I have been known to be
wrong.... good luck tomorrow by the way

Ground School Exam Questions & Question Banks

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ground School Exam Questions & Question Banks

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

#1