SlimHeader

facebook_page_plugin
× Welcome to the IREX question and answer forum. Please feel free to post your questions but more importantly also suggest answers for your forum colleagues. Bob himself or one of the other tutors will get to your question as soon as we can.

Exam Prep Question

  • sammason1
  • sammason1's Avatar Topic Author

sammason1 created the topic: Exam Prep Question

Hi Bob

I have been completing your online exam preps for the IREX exam and have came across this question which states.

"You are on approach to SYDNEY (KINGSFORD SMITH) (YSSY) on the RWY 34R ILS or LOC procedure in VH-OZY. During the approach you observe that the OFF flag for the ILS glidepath indicator is showing. You elect to continue the approach. What are the minima which now apply to the approach?"
Select one:
a. 270 ft, 1.5 km
b. 1189 ft, 4.4 km
c. 220 ft, 0.8 km
d. 500 ft, 2.7 km Correct

D is the correct answer but when reading the Jeppesen Approach plate the visibility is 2.4km instead of 2.7km as the answer states. I also checked the DAPS and they seem to verify that 2.4km is correct. Just wondering if this is just a typo or I'm reading the question wrong.

Thanks Sam
#1

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 318
  • Thank you received: 44

Stuart Tait replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

Gidday Sam
You are correct the visibility is 2.4 km, the plate must have changed not an uncommon issue I have amended the answer to reflect that change

Cheers
Stuart
#2

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • sammason1
  • sammason1's Avatar Topic Author

sammason1 replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

Hi Stuart

All good thanks for the reply and for clearing that query up for me.

Cheers Sam
#3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • John.Heddles
  • John.Heddles's Avatar
  • Offline
  • ATPL/consulting aero engineer
  • Posts: 365
  • Thank you received: 30

John.Heddles replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

A subtle error on the part of the OP.

Suggest he goes back to the Airservices webpage and checks the chart date validity. This is an ESSENTIAL part of any approach prebriefing .. no point using the wrong chart in anger and, no, you can't use a chart prior to its becoming valid.

2.4k vis shortly will be the correct answer but not for a couple of weeks ....

Current chart www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current...05-153_01MAR2018.pdf

Next cycle chart www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending...05-155_24MAY2018.pdf

Engineering specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.
#4

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • sammason1
  • sammason1's Avatar Topic Author

sammason1 replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

Hi John,

Just went back and looked at the Jeppesen charts and it's valid from the 29th of March so is valid for this question.

Cheers Sam
#5

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • John.Heddles
  • John.Heddles's Avatar
  • Offline
  • ATPL/consulting aero engineer
  • Posts: 365
  • Thank you received: 30

John.Heddles replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

That presents a very significant potential problem.

Could you post a scan of the Jepp chart, please ? I will take the question back to CASA for resolution as the potential for hazard is great if there is a protocol disconnect between the Airservices and third party documents.

If you don't want to post the scan, please do send it to me via email.

Engineering specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.
#6

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • sammason1
  • sammason1's Avatar Topic Author

sammason1 replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

Hi John

Please see attached a copy of Jeppesen plate.

Cheers Sam
#7
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • John.Heddles
  • John.Heddles's Avatar
  • Offline
  • ATPL/consulting aero engineer
  • Posts: 365
  • Thank you received: 30

John.Heddles replied the topic: Exam Prep Question

Thanks, Sam.

I'll chase up an answer via CASA/Airservices. I guess that a gremlin has crept into the mix along the way and it will be a simple mistake somewhere. It is inconceivable that different approaches, ostensibly the same, can be acceptable. For instance, the standard date changes provide the means for a safe transition from one procedure to a new and modified one or, indeed, significant enroute changes. One can see, quite easily, the problems which can arise if multiple aircraft are doing multiple things in ignorance of the details applying to the other guys or gals.

I wouldn't expect a quick answer but it certainly needs to be followed up.

Engineering specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.
#8

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.219 seconds