ATP Written: Aggravating questions.

[flyingcheesehead]

I had not one, but TWO questions on performance charts where the answers I got were smack-dab in between two of the possibilities. As in, EXACTLY halfway between two of the answers! (with the third possible answer outside the range entirely.)

And another one that I think I got right, but it was a guess and I'd like to know why the answer is what it is in the eyes of the FAA. I sure wish it was easier to take the questions home and study them afterwards so you could actually LEARN something from the test.

So here's the first aggravating one:

Given the following conditions, determine the minimum takeoff power:
35ºC
Pressure Altitude 7500 feet
Ice vanes retracted

I bet not a single person will come up with the "right" answer!

I'll post the other one in Cleared for the Approach...

 

[Sluggo63]

I'd say 2,820 ft-lbs.

What are my choices?

 

[Brad Z]

Memorize correct answer. Move on to next.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm game, 2800?

dtuuri

 

[Banjo33]

I get 2800 too, but wonder why you're not using Sheppardair? Like Brad said, "memorize the answer and move on."

 

[Henning]

I come up with 2860

 

[timwinters]

Put me in the 2800 camp.

Though I have no freakin' clue what they're talking about!

 

[ja_user]

Who cares

 

[gismo]

With a linear interpolation I get 2797.5 but that's a bit more precision than the detail of the graph allows so I'd go with 2800. However I'd also look for fine print that might say something like "Use the next higher altitude line if the PA falls between two lines".

I also noticed that the question in your post lacks a specific RPM and if the full text of the question doesn't specify 1700 RPM (and nothing else dictates that prop speed) the best answer would be "Can't be determined from the information given" or none of the above.

 

[Henning]

Lol, I google the question to see if I could find the right answer, and found this thread. So give it up, and the choices. PM me lol, interested to find out.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm game, 2800?

I get 2800 too

Put me in the 2800 camp.

Yep, that's what I got the first time. Available options were:

2880 (easy enough to eliminate)
2820
2780



So, I marked it and moved on. When I got to the end, I did exactly what Lance did (must be an engineer thing):

With a linear interpolation I get 2797.5 but that's a bit more precision than the detail of the graph allows so I'd go with 2800.

So, I figured 2797.5 is closer to 2780 than 2820, and chose 2780 as the answer. Wrong.

However I'd also look for fine print that might say something like "Use the next higher altitude line if the PA falls between two lines".

Unfortunately, what's posted above is the entire chart and no other information was given.

I also noticed that the question in your post lacks a specific RPM and if the full text of the question doesn't specify 1700 RPM (and nothing else dictates that prop speed) the best answer would be "Can't be determined from the information given" or none of the above.

Yeah, that wasn't an option either.

I'd say 2,820 ft-lbs.

Hah! Someone's been studying for the ATP recently, I think.

Memorize correct answer. Move on to next.

Yeah, but that's what aggravates me. If that's what you have to do to get the question right, then the test itself is entirely pointless, and I don't like to put that kind of time into a pointless exercise.

The real test of taking the ATP written is the commitment to study, learn and remember and your score proves how well you accomplished that task.

Sigh... A real test of knowledge would accomplish that task as well as helping you learn something instead of just memorize rote answers.

FAA written tests suck.

 

[dtuuri]

Hah! Someone's been studying for the ATP recently, I think.

They're wrong. That's why you should never try to get 100% on an FAA written--makes you wrong too.

dtuuri

 

[gismo]

Only a test question writer for the FAA would think that the difference between 2800 and 2820 could be meaningful on an instrument that is probably no better than 10% accurate in the first place and has a resolution of 100.

 

[Everskyward]

Only a test question writer for the FAA would think that the difference between 2800 and 2820 could be meaningful on an instrument that is probably no better than 10% accurate in the first place and has a resolution of 100.

That's what came to my mind too.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Yep, that's what I got the first time. Available options were:

2880 (easy enough to eliminate)
2820
2780

So, if the chart gives you 2800 then 2880 is not close, 2780 is close but not enough power to get you off the ground (less than minimum, eh?) so not the right answer. 2820 is close to the chart answer and more than the minimum.

If 2800 was the chart value, then in the "do things by the book" black and white world, 2799.9 would be the wrong answer because it is below the minimum requirement.

 

[dtuuri]

So, if the chart gives you 2800 then 2880 is not close, 2780 is close but not enough power to get you off the ground (less than minimum, eh?) so not the right answer. 2820 is close to the chart answer and more than the minimum.

If 2800 was the chart value, then in the "do things by the book" black and white world, 2799.9 would be the wrong answer because it is below the minimum requirement.

That sounds like a good explanation--if the question were worded slightly differently like, "Which of the following torque values would be the least power allowed for takeoff?"

dtuuri

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

That sounds like a good explanation--if the question were worded slightly differently like, "Which of the following torque values would be the least power allowed for takeoff?"

dtuuri

Doesn't it say to pick the "best" answer somewhere in the test instructions?

 

[dtuuri]

Doesn't it say to pick the "best" answer somewhere in the test instructions?

Yeah, but... the OP's question was, "Given the following conditions, determine the minimum takeoff power." Since "Minimum Takeoff Power" is the title of the chart, the answer ought to be right out of the chart, IMO anyway.

dtuuri

 

[Sluggo63]

Hah! Someone's been studying for the ATP recently, I think.

Nope... Have had mine for 15 years.

Sigh... A real test of knowledge would accomplish that task as well as helping you learn something instead of just memorize rote answers.

FAA written tests suck.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. If I were the FAA I would make sure that you knew what questions you got wrong, what the correct answer was, and why. If you really wanted airmen to know this information, you would make sure they learned what they didn't know.

They're wrong.

Apparently not...:wink2:

Only a test question writer for the FAA would think that the difference between 2800 and 2820 could be meaningful on an instrument that is probably no better than 10% accurate in the first place and has a resolution of 100.

Ain't that the truth. As a young KC-135 copilot, I chased a lot of charts in my day. There was no software validated for takeoff data, so before every flight we got the current weather, opened up the Performance Manual and spent about an hour running chart after chart to get all the pertinent power settings, speeds, climb gradients, etc. When we got out to the end of the runway, if any of the inputs changed by a certain amount (i.e. temperature +/- 5*C, Pressure altitude +/- 250 feet, etc.) we would have to correct the data at the end of the runway. All that to determine that S1 was now 134 knots versus 132 knots. There was no way to see that kind of resolution on our airspeed indicator. Oh well. Now, we just plug the numbers into the FMS and it spits out our data.

Bottom line is... memorize the answers, pass the test, and be on your way.

Edit: I just reread this, and boy... do I sound like the grumpy old man "back in the day... we had it tough..." I didn't mean for it to come across that way. Charts are crap. The amount of times I've had to run a chart as an ATP (including as a 727 FE) is exactly ZERO.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Kent: I had a couple like that too, but I passed by a decent margin and have moved on . I had to compute trim tab settings on 727. Don't think I'll be using that! What bugged me most was telling them what kind of mistake it was for pilot not to set heading bug to runway heading in FAA vernacular. But, I'm on to working on passing the flight test

 

[dtuuri]

Nope... Have had mine for 15 years.

...

Edit: I just reread this, and boy... do I sound like the grumpy old man "back in the day... we had it tough..." I didn't mean for it to come across that way.

Shucks, you're still a newbie. I got mine 40 years ago.

dtuuri

 

[Sluggo63]

Shucks, you're still a newbie. I got mine 40 years ago.

dtuuri

Thanks for making me feel young again!

 

[Brad Z]

Yeah, but that's what aggravates me. If that's what you have to do to get the question right, then the test itself is entirely pointless, and I don't like to put that kind of time into a pointless exercise.

Sigh... A real test of knowledge would accomplish that task as well as helping you learn something instead of just memorize rote answers.

FAA written tests suck.

You're tilting at windmills. If you wait and take the ATP knowledge test after July 31st (and after jumping through all of the new hoops), you'll find that the new test has done away with much of the stupidity you mention here.

My point is, this is a box. Get it checked, however possible. Otherwise you'll stress yourself and waste time studying.

I was in the same boat as you. I started my studying by reading everything I could get my hands on, working out all of the problems, etc. I quickly realized the memory gouge, regardless of how stupid it was, was the most efficient way to prepare and pass the test in a short period of time. I passed it two weeks ago with a 91. Mission accomplished.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Don't remember seeing this question. You must have taken the 135 test. Should have done the Sheppard Air route and not spent so much time on a question you obviously know how to do. A lot of the performance questions are like this where the answer you get will be right in the middle. You may be right and the FAA may have just rounded to a different decimal point than you. You aren't gonna get these spaghetti charts down to the wire. Plus different manufacturers do the charts differently and some are simpler than others. You obviously know how to run a chart. I'd call the task learned and move on.