Study question clarification

[islandboy]

I'm browsing the Gleim Instrument Pilot FAA Test Prep book and stumbled across a few seeming errors/contradictions (2015 edition).

Are there any knowledgeable souls out there with the book who can cast away the doubts?

For SU 6:

#133 seems to have the wrong answer.

#154 seems to conflict with #157.

#200 seems to conflict with #206.

 

[frfly172]

Go to the Gliem website,and check for their latest corrections.

 

[Brad Z]

I'm browsing the Gleim Instrument Pilot FAA Test Prep book and stumbled across a few seeming errors/contradictions (2015 edition).

Are there any knowledgeable souls out there with the book who can cast away the doubts?

For SU 6:

#133 seems to have the wrong answer.

#154 seems to conflict with #157.

#200 seems to conflict with #206.

Since I (and probably most of us ATP and instrument rated pilots here) don't have a copy of the test prep book, you would probably get more responses if you posted the question and answers that you reference in your post.

 

[islandboy]

Thanks:

I found the correction service on Gleim, and two of three problem points were addressed there.

The outstanding conflict involves question # 200 and #206. These questions have associated charts. Do you know whether it is legal for me to posts the charts, or does copyright not apply in this limited use situation?

Since I (and probably most of us ATP and instrument rated pilots here) don't have a copy of the test prep book, you would probably get more responses if you posted the question and answers that you reference in your post.

 

[islandboy]

Thanks for the suggestion. I found an e-mail-based correction service and had a couple of the sources of confusion addressed. One more to go...

Go to the Gliem website,and check for their latest corrections.

 

[Brad Z]

Thanks:

I found the correction service on Gleim, and two of three problem points were addressed there.

The outstanding conflict involves question # 200 and #206. These questions have associated charts. Do you know whether it is legal for me to posts the charts, or does copyright not apply in this limited use situation?

If they are knowledge test bank questions, the charts are published by the FAA and in the public domain. They are published by the FAA here:

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/testing/supplements/

 

[islandboy]

Thanks, I'll post as suggested.

If they are knowledge test bank questions, the charts are published by the FAA and in the public domain. They are published by the FAA here:

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/testing/supplements/

 

[islandboy]

Here are the two questions that seem at odds to me (I have indicated the declared correct answers with an asterisk). The indicated figure is found on Page 164 of the testing supplement (https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-3E.pdf).

200. (Refer to Figure 152.) When flying the LNAV approach, the missed approach point (MAP) would be indicated by reaching

*A. an altitude of 3100 feet.

B. a distance of 1.5 NM to RW30.

C. the RW30 waypoint.

206. (Refer to Figure 152.) How do you recognize the missed approach point on the LNAV approach?

A. At the RW30 waypoint.

B. At the Decision Altitude (DA) for the LPV portion of the approach.

*C. Arrival at the LNAV/VNAV Decision Altitude.

 

[warthog1984]

Here are the two questions that seem at odds to me (I have indicated the declared correct answers with an asterisk). The indicated figure is found on Page 164 of the testing supplement (https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-3E.pdf).

200. (Refer to Figure 152.) When flying the LNAV approach, the missed approach point (MAP) would be indicated by reaching

*A. an altitude of 3100 feet.

B. a distance of 1.5 NM to RW30.

C. the RW30 waypoint.

206. (Refer to Figure 152.) How do you recognize the missed approach point on the LNAV approach?

A. At the RW30 waypoint.

B. At the Decision Altitude (DA) for the LPV portion of the approach.

*C. Arrival at the LNAV/VNAV Decision Altitude.

3100 msl is DA for LNAV on that approach. What's the question?

 

[flyingron]

There's no DA for the LNAV approach. Only the LNAV/VNAV version has a DA.
Actually none of the answers are technically correct. Absolutely typical FAA horsepoop test writing and poor proofreading. The MAP is actually the MAP waypoint in the approach database, which probably is coincident with the RW30 waypoint but you can't tell that by reading the plate. The FAA says it's "usually" the runway threshold, but you're supposed to let the GPS tell you.

 

[dmspilot]

Here are the two questions that seem at odds to me (I have indicated the declared correct answers with an asterisk). The indicated figure is found on Page 164 of the testing supplement (https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-3E.pdf).

200. (Refer to Figure 152.) When flying the LNAV approach, the missed approach point (MAP) would be indicated by reaching

*A. an altitude of 3100 feet.

B. a distance of 1.5 NM to RW30.

C. the RW30 waypoint.

206. (Refer to Figure 152.) How do you recognize the missed approach point on the LNAV approach?

A. At the RW30 waypoint.

B. At the Decision Altitude (DA) for the LPV portion of the approach.

*C. Arrival at the LNAV/VNAV Decision Altitude.

Should be C and A respectively.

 

[Brad Z]

Should be C and A respectively.

Agreed, C and A. The asterisk was the Gleim recommended answer?

 

[islandboy]

Sorry...I incorrectly indicated one of Gleim's preferred answers above (#200). I have edited in the quoted area below. You can now see the conflict between the two questions...

In my mind, they chose correctly in 200 but incorrectly in 206.

I hate feeling like I'm missing something subtle.

Here are the two questions that seem at odds to me (I have indicated the declared correct answers with an asterisk). The indicated figure is found on Page 164 of the testing supplement (https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-3E.pdf).

200. (Refer to Figure 152.) When flying the LNAV approach, the missed approach point (MAP) would be indicated by reaching

A. an altitude of 3100 feet.

B. a distance of 1.5 NM to RW30.

*C. the RW30 waypoint.

206. (Refer to Figure 152.) How do you recognize the missed approach point on the LNAV approach?

A. At the RW30 waypoint.

B. At the Decision Altitude (DA) for the LPV portion of the approach.

*C. Arrival at the LNAV/VNAV Decision Altitude.

 

[azure]

They are wrong, or the questions are incorrect. If you were flying the LNAV/VNAV approach, their answers would be correct since the LNAV/VNAV has a glideslope and a DA, which also defines the MAP.

For the LNAV approach, there is no DA, only an MDA and the MAP is defined by the RW30 waypoint.

So, as worded, the correct answers should be 200: C and 206: A.

 

[azure]

Sorry...I incorrectly indicated one of Gleim's preferred answers above (#200). I have edited in the quoted area below. You can now see the conflict between the two questions...

In my mind, they chose correctly in 200 but incorrectly in 206.

I hate feeling like I'm missing something subtle.

No subtleties, and it doesn't sound like you're missing anything. Probably 206 is incorrectly transcribed, should be asking about the LNAV/VNAV approach. As written, the correct answer is A.

 

[islandboy]

Thanks to all for the helpful oversight.

I appreciate the expertise.

 

[aterpster]

There's no DA for the LNAV approach. Only the LNAV/VNAV version has a DA.
Actually none of the answers are technically correct. Absolutely typical FAA horsepoop test writing and poor proofreading. The MAP is actually the MAP waypoint in the approach database, which probably is coincident with the RW30 waypoint but you can't tell that by reading the plate. The FAA says it's "usually" the runway threshold, but you're supposed to let the GPS tell you.

The RWY 30 waypoint is indeed the non-precision-approach (NPA) missed approach point (MAP). If the NBA MAP is prior to the runway the runway waypoint won't be shown, instead a waypoint prior to runway threshold will be associated with the missed approach ("pull up") icon:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1506/05737rz12.pdf

Further, in an LPV approach (or LNAV/VNAV) where the DA is the MAP, but the runway threshold is coded as the NPA MAP, the avionics will not go into "Suspend" until the NPA MAP, even though the LPV (or LNAV/VNAV) DA MAP is prior to the runway.

 

[aterpster]

Here are the profile and minima boxes for the current LBF RNAV Rwy 30. The FAA chart is first, followed by the Jeppesen portrayal. I think Jeppesen makes it clearer:

 

[azure]

Nice comparison, FAA vs. Jepp. I do like that the TDZE and the distances to RW30 are explicitly shown in the profile view on the Jepp, otherwise I think it's what you're used to. I'm more familiar with the FAA charts and would have to stare a bit to get the same info off of a Jepp chart.

What are the numbers in the Glide Path Angle row? Feet per minute?

 

[flyingron]

Further, in an LPV approach (or LNAV/VNAV) where the DA is the MAP, but the runway threshold is coded as the NPA MAP, the avionics will not go into "Suspend" until the NPA MAP, even though the LPV (or LNAV/VNAV) DA MAP is prior to the runway.

Actually, mine doesn't SUSPEND, it just sequences to the MAP leg when you hit the waypoint (and the little lady in the radio says "missed approach").

 

[aterpster]

What are the numbers in the Glide Path Angle row? Feet per minute?

They are used as rate of descent. But, they are really descent gradient because the speeds shown are ground speeds.

 

[azure]

They are used as rate of descent. But, they are really descent gradient because the speeds shown are ground speeds.

I don't follow. To me, "descent gradient" would be in feet per nm, which is independent of ground speed as long as you're following the GS.

 

[aterpster]

I don't follow. To me, "descent gradient" would be in feet per nm, which is independent of ground speed as long as you're following the GS.

Well, they are referenced to ground speed, so they are gradients. Flying an ILS (or LPV) is a ground-referenced procedure.

If you're IAS happens to be the same as your ground speed, then they also are rate of descent. On non-precision approaches that have straight-in minimums, but no VDA, Jeppesen doesn't chart this table.

 

[aterpster]

Actually, mine doesn't SUSPEND, it just sequences to the MAP leg when you hit the waypoint (and the little lady in the radio says "missed approach").

So, when you land out of a straight-in approach is the little lady saying "missed approach" as you flare?

 

[azure]

Well, they are referenced to ground speed, so they are gradients. Flying an ILS (or LPV) is a ground-referenced procedure.

If you're IAS happens to be the same as your ground speed, then they also are rate of descent. On non-precision approaches that have straight-in minimums, but no VDA, Jeppesen doesn't chart this table.

Sounds like you're saying that they're rates of descent (I assume feet per minute) based on ground speed, which is what I thought. Maybe it's just my physics background, but I think of a gradient as d(something)/d(spatial increment), e.g. a minimum climb gradient, in feet per nm.

 

[aterpster]

Sounds like you're saying that they're rates of descent (I assume feet per minute) based on ground speed, which is what I thought. Maybe it's just my physics background, but I think of a gradient as d(something)/d(spatial increment), e.g. a minimum climb gradient, in feet per nm.

Jeppesen is expressing the descent gradient for a range of speeds, to make the information useful to the pilot. Nonetheless, it is easy to miss that it is for ground speed.

The FAA uses gradients in criteria for descent, but those aren't published. Climb gradients are published, as you say, in feet per nautical mile. That information is not directly useful to the pilot. The pilot has to make a conversion for his best estimatedof ground speed during the segment to which the climb gradient applies.

 

[azure]

Yep, and the useful information to me as a pilot is the descent *rate* in feet per minute. So why say they're "expressing the descent *gradient*"?

This is apparently just semantics, but I'm finding the terminology confusing enough that at first I thought you were saying something quite different.

 

[aterpster]

Yep, and the useful information to me as a pilot is the descent *rate* in feet per minute. So why say they're "expressing the descent *gradient*"?

This is apparently just semantics, but I'm finding the terminology confusing enough that at first I thought you were saying something quite different.

What I am saying is exactly what I am saying with climb gradients on an ODP or SID; that is, if you know your ground speed then you know what rate of climb you need to achieve (or exceed) that gradient.

In the Jeppesen approach chart they have done the descent gradient math for you, so you select (or interpret between) the ground speed values they have provided. In this case you have to maintain the rate of descent, not exceed it. If you are on an LPV, ILS or VNAV GS, it is easy to see and correct deviations. With a VDA, not so unless your avionics provide an advisory VDA. Or, perhaps the pilot wants to make a constant descent with no vertical information available from the avionics. If he flies the correct rate of descent he should cross the step-down fix(es) if any, without violating them.

In the Garmin G-1000 the green path vector is very valuable without other vertical guidance, provided the pilot knows how to use both it and the Jepp table. Or, in a case like KBIH, RNAV 12 "Z", where the FAA removed the VDA (because it failed a periodic flight inspection), then the path vector is even more useful, but more tricky to use correctly.

 

[flyingron]

So, when you land out of a straight-in approach is the little lady saying "missed approach" as you flare?

Precisely. It comes shortly after she says "500."

I'm pretty sure all the WAAS navigators automatically sequence into the missed without any button pushes, even if they don't talk. The 480 most certainly DOES.

 

[azure]

What I am saying is exactly what I am saying with climb gradients on an ODP or SID; that is, if you know your ground speed then you know what rate of climb you need to achieve (or exceed) that gradient.

I do understand that. If I was given a gradient, then to compute the correct rate of descent I would have to know my ground speed. The table gives you the descent angle and the rate of descent for discrete values of the ground speed.

In the Jeppesen approach chart they have done the descent gradient math for you, so you select (or interpret between) the ground speed values they have provided. In this case you have to maintain the rate of descent, not exceed it. If you are on an LPV, ILS or VNAV GS, it is easy to see and correct deviations. With a VDA, not so unless your avionics provide an advisory VDA. Or, perhaps the pilot wants to make a constant descent with no vertical information available from the avionics. If he flies the correct rate of descent he should cross the step-down fix(es) if any, without violating them.

What do you mean by "advisory VDA"? Would an LNAV+V advisory glidepath such as I used to see on my 480 be an example, or is this something only available with more advanced avionics systems?

In the Garmin G-1000 the green path vector is very valuable without other vertical guidance, provided the pilot knows how to use both it and the Jepp table. Or, in a case like KBIH, RNAV 12 "Z", where the FAA removed the VDA (because it failed a periodic flight inspection), then the path vector is even more useful, but more tricky to use correctly.

Bringing up that plate (FAA only, I don't have the Jepp version), I see only LNAV minimums and a note "Descent angle NA" in the profile view. What exactly did it have before?

 

[aterpster]

What do you mean by "advisory VDA"? Would an LNAV+V advisory glidepath such as I used to see on my 480 be an example, or is this something only available with more advanced avionics systems?

LNAV+V is a VDA. It is advisory only, unlike LPV, ILS, and LNAV/VNAV.

Bringing up that plate (FAA only, I don't have the Jepp version), I see only LNAV minimums and a note "Descent angle NA" in the profile view. What exactly did it have before?

Jepp had the descent gradient table and the angle. The fact there was only an LNAV line of straight-in minimums meant it was for the VDA.

For the VDA the FAA charts have an angle symbol with the angle stated in degrees.

 

[azure]

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.