Has anyone come across a question in the Air Law exam about a150,000kg international arrival aircraft overhead Adelaide at 2010Z?
The question had the options;
A. It can land without any restrictions.
B. It would have to hold till 2030Z
C. It can land on Runway 05 without any delays.
D. It would have to hold till 2030Z to burn fuel to meet landing weight requirements.

Does this appear familiar to anyone who has taken the Air Law and if so, can you shed some light on what is correct?
I'm not 100% on the options that I've remembered here but I do think I'm close.

Thanks!

Hi Melb,

you have posted some interesting questions lately, including this one. However, I must ask - are these from an ATPL air law or PAOS conversion exam? The CPL syllabus (as far as I am aware) doesn't require knowledge of RSWT forecasts nor questions on aircraft over 5700kg. If these questions are coming up in a CPL exam (and this is the first time we've heard of it) then it is time to send off another email to CASA!

For that reason, I doubt anyone has come across this question in the CPL Air Law exam but the answer would seem to me that unless the aircraft had permission under YPAD Noise Abatelement procedures, it would need to hold until after the curfew period ends at 0600 Local time (2030Z).

Cheers,

Rich

Hello Rich and thank you for the reply!
Yes, this was one of a few questions I missed on the AOSA exam. Meteorology and Air Law combined exam containing 54 questions of which you need to score 80%. I took it the first time on Friday and the retook it the following Tuesday. I got 72% first and 75% the second time.
Regarding the Adelaide curfew, I answered as you suggested but it seems I got it wrong. It specifically said the aircraft had no special permission to land before the curfew ended. I was very surprised I got it wrong.
Another thing with that question was that it referenced DAP Charts which were not allowed to be used. I brought it up with the invigilator and all they could suggest was contacting CASA afterwards.
I also had a question on ARFORs. This one asked about visibility and I'm stumped as to how I missed it. It appeared on both tests and knowing I had missed it the first time, I chose a slightly different answer the second time and still got it wrong.
Without having something to show you, it's kinda difficult to describe how it went but here's a shot at it.
On the ARFOR, the only reference to visibility was "4000 TSBRRA". The only two options that referred to 4000m read something like this.
1, "Visibility reducing to 4000m in Thunderstorms, Mist and Rain"
2, "Visibility 4000m Thunderstorms, Mist and Rain".
Strikingly similar I thought. Now, knowing what I answered several days prior and getting it wrong, I chose the other similar option thinking if the other one was wrong, surely this was it! Wrong again!
There were 2 other options that referenced greater than 10km but I didn't see anything anywhere on that ARFOR that came close to those options. Hence, I went with the 4,000m options. Boy was I surprised to see on the KDR, "Interpret ARFOR".
I've got more on this exam but I'll leave it at that for now Rich.
I eagerly await your take on this.
Regards,
Melb3049.

Hi Melb3049,

Here is the description of the Visibility section taken direct from the BOM website (www.bom.gov.au/aviation/data/education/arfor.pdf)
The visibility in the ARFORs is considered to be 10km or more by default unless a value is given without condition e.g. "VISIBILITY: 8km". This would mean the prevailing visibility is 8km over the entire area.

Therefore, you would normally read "VISIBILITY: 4000M TSBRRA" as "Visibility is 10km or more unless in TSBRRA, in which case 4000 metres can be expected".
Of your answer options, (1) is suspect because you don't state what the visibility is reducing from and (2) is suspect because the visibility is only 4000M when you are actually in TSBRRA.

The exact wording would be required to really make give you the correct answer I'm afraid.

Cheers,

Rich