Burnt out

[ja_user]

Do they ever change the numbers around in the math problems? Rote memorization I can do. I'm just worried the#s will change then I'll get it wrong. Is the test question bank the same as the questions in the Gleim? Or is that something different?

The FAA changes the questions around occasionally, and has some questions that look similiar.. But not often, (think every 5-10 years)..

I have no idea of Gleim keeps their stuff up to date, some companies are better than others at this.

 

[Lizzyduff]

Questions aren't published anymore. Sheppard Air has a pretty good idea since they pay for the questions.

I PM'd Liz...hopefully all this advice does her some good.

http://www.sheppardair.com/faq.htm

seems to have evening except pain old private pilot. But it looks like there is a free trial so it can't hurt to try. thanks for the suggestion. At the very least maybe I can get their ap for Android.

 

[ja_user]

http://www.sheppardair.com/faq.htm

seems to have evening except pain old private pilot. But it looks like there is a free trial so it can't hurt to try. thanks for the suggestion. At the very least maybe I can get their ap for Android.

They are really good at what they do.. But don't bother getting the questions for any other cert, they aren't duplicated with the private questions..

Sheppard started by helping Military guys Rote Memorize the FAA exams, for their conversion. (Because the FAA written's were so horribly written).. They only recently added IFR/CFII/IGI..

 

[Lizzyduff]

E6B -

I used my Sporty’s Electronic E6B for my PPL and my Instrument rating. I did not have to use the old Slide Ruler.

I was wondering if the E6B Smart Phone APPs would work as good as the Sporty’s Electronic E6B?

There's a smart phone app?!? It's it free? Where do you download?

 

[ja_user]

There's a smart phone app?!? It's it free? Where do you download?

I bought a calculator, It is very helpful.. Especially for the W&B problems.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASA-Pathfinder-Electronic-E6B-Flight-Computer-CX-2-/150772192253

You can find them a LOT cheaper

 

[sdflyer]

You just have to pass your written. I wouldn't worry about high score. It will get better if you going to continue working on advanced ratings. In fact, certain things actually made sense to me when I started work on my CFI.

 

[Lizzyduff]

Just a side-note, I use a CR-4 instead of an E6B. There isn't a huge difference but there is some. If the E6B isn't clicking for you, check these out. Also, they fit in pockets nicer

It took me a while for it to click, but after doing a few nav-log samples and question computations, they're pretty darned cool and I do find the concepts stuck in my brain easier than if I were using a computer to get the answers. It's pretty neat to see the direct correlation as you turn the wheel for different values.

Good luck; I think you have a lot of solid advice here already

I looked up the CR-4 on Google. Looks about the same, kind of. I've never heard of it before. Huh. Interesting concept though. Might see if my CFI has one I can try.

 

[Lizzyduff]

If the test would actually reflect your knowledge about all things aviation, then yes 100% would be the target. But since it has so many ambiguous, badly worded and irrelevant questions, the result really doesn't matter as long as its a pass.

Agreed. It truly doesn't seem to reflect any real life aeronautical knowledge at all. I'm definitely a type A so it's frustrating to do so well in the cockpit then so horribly on the test. For those of us who just don't test well its prohibitive, a frustration or obstacle rather than a learning experience.

 

[MAKG1]

Agreed. It truly doesn't seem to reflect any real life aeronautical knowledge at all. I'm definitely a type A so it's frustrating to do so well in the cockpit then so horribly on the test. For those of us who just don't test well its prohibitive, a frustration or obstacle rather than a learning experience.

Really? Like the night PIC currency rules?

The exams aren't great, but to say they have no relation to reality is going overboard.

The example given above about detonation is wrong, and proves the poster there doesn't understand it. Such is the point. The other two choices are preignition and ignition-missing, and the three each have wildly different consequences and mitigation for the pilot.

 

[mtuomi]

Really? Like the night PIC currency rules?

The exams aren't great, but to say they have no relation to reality is going overboard.

The example given above about detonation is wrong, and proves the poster there doesn't understand it. Such is the point. The other two choices are preignition and ignition-missing, and the three each have wildly different consequences and mitigation for the pilot.

I understand "detonation" rather well. I deal with it at work every day and I get paid for consulting about it.
Detonation never occurs in a reciprocal engine, end of story. FAA's terminology is incorrect and inaccurate. I hope one day people would stop using it, it is something people thought was happening 50 years ago, now we know much better. That is why I used it as an example of ambiguous/badly worded question.

The parachute then, well, that is just irrelevant.

I was not saying the test is completely pointless, I just said it has so many pointless and irrelevant questions that I don't see any need to be frustrated if you only score 80%, that is good enough.
All the night currency etc questions are good and very valid, but there are also a ton of questions that are completely pointless (such as the parachute question).

 

[N801BH]

I understand "detonation" rather well. I deal with it at work every day and I get paid for consulting about it.
Detonation never occurs in a reciprocal engine, end of story. FAA's terminology is incorrect and inaccurate. I hope one day people would stop using it, it is something people thought was happening 50 years ago, now we know much better. That is why I used it as an example of ambiguous/badly worded question.

The parachute then, well, that is just irrelevant.

I was not saying the test is completely pointless, I just said it has so many pointless and irrelevant questions that I don't see any need to be frustrated if you only score 80%, that is good enough.
All the night currency etc questions are good and very valid, but there are also a ton of questions that are completely pointless (such as the parachute question).

 

[Timmer]

I looked up the CR-4 on Google. Looks about the same, kind of. I've never heard of it before. Huh. Interesting concept though. Might see if my CFI has one I can try.

I only know of it through my father who learned in the Navy. Apparently, the Navy only uses CR-4s instead of E6Bs.

At first they were overwhelming but they click eventually and as I said did help in solidifying some of the concepts of navigation. You'll want to pick one and get comfortable with it so you can use it while flying.

I just took my test a couple weeks ago and I was pretty stressed, too. I take knowledge pretty seriously and while you can find some questions that aren't too important, much of it is. That said, study hard but take breaks and don't worry about the score so much as your understanding.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

 

[fiveoboy01]

Agreed. It truly doesn't seem to reflect any real life aeronautical knowledge at all.

That's a pretty blanket statement. I'll agree that there are a few outdated questions but most of it is relevant.

Detonation never occurs in a reciprocal engine,

I used to work extensively with drag race engines of the nitrous fed variety(and others) and you're flat-out wrong. Detonation does indeed occur in reciprocating engines.

The FAA question, while "technically" wrong, is correct for a "dummy".

I'll agree the parachute question isn't going to be relevant for the majority of pilots, but knowing the requirements if you wish to carry one isn't a bad thing.

I knew that DPE's look at test scores, it was more of a rhetorical question. My CFI wouldn't sign me off for the written until I sat in the classrom with study buddy and scored 3 tests in a row with a 90% or better score. Maybe most here don't agree with that, but I do.

 

[ChrisK]

My CFI wouldn't sign me off for the written until I sat in the classrom with study buddy and scored 3 tests in a row with a 90% or better score. Maybe most here don't agree with that, but I do.

Mine was 85. Come to think of it IIRC, if you pay for the Sporty's course, they will endorse you with an 85.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I did the Sporty's course and I thought it was two tests of 85 or higher. I can't remember. Either way I do have the certificate from them... but my instructor had "other" requirements LOL. I ended up with a 97 on the written. I can't say for sure that the oral was pretty simple because of that, but I'd like to think it had something to do with it.

 

[N801BH]

Agreed.... And mild detonation does this.....

 

[MAKG1]

Agreed.... And mild detonation does this.....

I think he was attempting to make a semantic point.

That secondary ignition points after spark can exist was demonstrated by an astounding high speed film done by NACA in the mid 30s. I looked for it on Youtube and it's not there.

That the secondary forms a shock wave -- which is what a detonation is -- was presumed.

However, the definition of detonation as post-spark secondary ignition is in wide use even if it is a misnomer, and someone who claims to consult professionally on that must know that. The only significant ambiguity was in the protest, not the question.

 

[Z06_Mir]

Do you think DPEs look at written test results prior to the oral exam and checkride?

Some do and some don't. Mine never looked at mine for my private/instrument/commercial. I told him I got a 71% on the commercial written and he told me to bring in the codes and what they mean to the ride. He never looked at them because I knew my stuff on the oral. People get way too worked up over the writtens. I can't believe it.

 

[gismo]

Fly in to KFHR and you have two approach choices. GPS or ADF. No ILS, no VOR. So, yes, they are used.

IME, in the continental US, the only ones using ADF are pilots in airplanes lacking an IFR approach approved GPS and those unfortunate few who are training for their IFR rating in an airplane that still has a working ADF (and a lot of those mysteriously develop malfunctions the day before the checkride). BTW, XM radio is way better than ADF for ballgames and other inflight entertainment.

The folks saying that you should stress too much on the test scores are correct. 70% is the minimum passing grade. You don't get brownie point for doing better. I got 100% on my PP written and 96% on my IR written. I had to take the IR ride twice. Written and check ride are two different animals. Just do the best you can and get the written out of the way. Then get back to the fun part - fly!

While I agree that there's no need to sweat getting a couple answers wrong in the written exam, if you miss enough to barely pass, your DE is likely to spend a lot of time poking at your knowledge or lack thereof during the oral exam. And my wife said she wouldn't fly with me if I barely passed so I had some extra incentive.

IMO the only two ways to get 100% are to get lucky on a couple of poorly written questions or as was technically possible when I took the tests, memorize every answer to every question. The way they write the test, it's pretty much a given that you'll misinterpret some of the questions or answers, but it's also pretty much a given that if you know what you're supposed to know you'll pass with a fairly high score.

And let this old guy put in a plug for the manual E-6B. Batteries don't die. Display hybrids don't quit. And you can use it with one hand while flying the plane with the other. That said, I can't remember the last time I used one in flight.

When I took the IR written (about 25 years ago) I used both a manual E-6B and one of the first electronic ones. On at least one question two of the answer choices were closer together than the effective resolution of the manual E6-B and my best guess at interpreting the properly set up E6-B matched one answer and the electronic version matched the other close one. I asked the proctor which calculation I should go with and he suggested that the person who generated the answers probably used a manual E6-B so I picked that answer and it was the wrong one. So if the test is still that stupidly written you've got a better chance of getting the right answer with an electronic calculator. Either way you should also be able to recognize when the calculated result makes no logical sense (e.g. the total fuel for a 200 nm trip in a 172 requires 52.5 gallons of fuel without any calculator, mechanical or electronic.

 

[asechrest]

Nicely done, Doc. Great post.

OK, I've read all the posts here and now for something completely different.

You are wrapped around the axle, stressing on a test of your ability to fly a plane safely. Let's just forget that. You have a passing grade from before, and with the correct amount of prep, I'll bet you pass again, so lets set that aside.

Moving on to the real world, you can fly a plane! By yourself, land it and walk away no worse for wear! The CFI considers you a safe operator of the aircraft, and has given you your leave to fly by yourself to practice your skills. This is no small, or ignominious feat. Far fewer than 1/10 of 1% of the world's population can do what you do. Relish this. The fact that you will someday have your license and fly without much restriction is something you can look forward to given all you've spent and worked for.

Tests are a bridge on the road of life. You'll get across this one, and the nirvana on the other side, whether you use it everyday, or just a few times per year is your guiding light. It's not a destination, but a journey, and you have to cross the bridge. Every other pilot in the sky has crossed the bridge and you will do it too.

Ultimately, the exams are not a measure of your test taking, but they are set up to insure that you are a safe operator. That's all they want. You don't have to be the best pilot who ever took to the sky, you just need to be safe. And I'll tell you what, based on your CFI giving you free reign to solo when and where you like he knows you are safe, and that is all this is about.

Relax, have a glass of pinot, take a warm bath, get away from it for a while. Maybe a few days, maybe a week, or even a month or so. Wait until that tug of flight calls on you again, refreshed and with that spark you started with long ago. You will get through it, and you'll be better for the pain on your journey.

 

[marcoseddi]

It's just a written if that's ur biggest problem you're good to go who cares if u fail anwau take it again you will pass its super easy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtuomi]

I used to work extensively with drag race engines of the nitrous fed variety(and others) and you're flat-out wrong. Detonation does indeed occur in reciprocating engines.

Sorry to say, but it is you who is wrong here. What you mean to say is knocking/pre-ignition does indeed occur in reciprocating engines, but you use an incorrect word, detonation, for it.

Calling it detonation is a common mistake.

The flame speed never exceeds speed of sound (detonation). It is always subsonic (deflagration). During knocking combustion the flame speed of the front that self-ignited can be close to speed of sound (still deflagration), but the pressure waves can exceed speed of sound (no effect on what you call the combustion process).
It is commonly called detonation, because a long time ago people thought that is what was happening. It doesn't change the fact that it is an incorrect term, and hopefully eventually people will stop using it.

Too pedantic, yes maybe, but still doesn't change the fact that it is an incorrect word to use.

Sorry for off topic.

 

[murphey]

It's just a written if that's ur biggest problem you're good to go who cares if u fail anwau take it again you will pass its super easy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but it's $140-150 every time to take the test.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, but it's $140-150 every time to take the test.

Which is pocket change compared to the cost of getting a certificate.

 

[MAKG1]

Too pedantic, yes maybe, but still doesn't change the fact that it is an incorrect word to use.

I doubt it's the first professional misnomer you've run across, and it definitely won't be the last.

Why is it called "lift" if it doesn't always go up (e.g., an inverted wing or a normal elevator)?

Why do astronomers call helium, neon and argon metals, and label house sized rocks as "dust?"

Why does your modern car have a gas pedal, when it actually controls air only (fuel is controlled by the computer)?

You'll never change common usage of that word. Yes, it's a misnomer. Astronomers have terms that have survived millennia. Planets don't actually wander, but rather follow very predictable and repeatable paths.

 

[fiveoboy01]

He seems to know more than me so I stand corrected on the improper use of the term, but tomato tomahto. The question on the written is sufficient for the common man taking his test

 

[azure]

Why do astronomers call helium, neon and argon metals, and label house sized rocks as "dust?"

Nitpick: I've never heard HELIUM called a metal, but yeah, anything of higher atomic number than helium is. Including the ones you mention.

(I've always understood the reason to be that He from primordial nucleosynthesis makes up about 25% of the ordinary matter in the Universe, but none of the higher elements were made that way (except traces of Li), so "metallicity" is a measure of how much of a star consists of non-primordial elements.)

</nitpick>

 

[danhagan]

Reminds me of the old joke.

What do they call the guy at the bottom of his class in Med School?

Doctor.

Just take it, pass, and move on.

Thread Stray: The Associate Professors at the medical school I contract at joke and call them "Jack" as in "Jack the Ripper" if they get their hands on a knife or that the success rate will be roughly equal.

 

[Lizzyduff]

IMO the only two ways to get 100% are to get lucky on a couple of poorly written questions or as was technically possible when I took the tests, memorize Either way you should also be able to recognize when the calculated result makes no logical sense (e.g. the total fuel for a 200 nm trip in a 172 requires 52.5 gallons of fuel without any calculator, mechanical or electronic.

Good point, i can usually eliminate one just with common sense process of elimination.

 

[sferguson524]

There's a written??

I thought it was a knowledge exam

 

[Dan Thomas]

Sorry to say, but it is you who is wrong here. What you mean to say is knocking/pre-ignition does indeed occur in reciprocating engines, but you use an incorrect word, detonation, for it.

Calling it detonation is a common mistake.

The flame speed never exceeds speed of sound (detonation). It is always subsonic (deflagration). During knocking combustion the flame speed of the front that self-ignited can be close to speed of sound (still deflagration), but the pressure waves can exceed speed of sound (no effect on what you call the combustion process).
It is commonly called detonation, because a long time ago people thought that is what was happening. It doesn't change the fact that it is an incorrect term, and hopefully eventually people will stop using it.

Too pedantic, yes maybe, but still doesn't change the fact that it is an incorrect word to use.

Sorry for off topic.

Preignition and detonation are two different things. Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the mixture, caused by compression and heating of the mixture by the pressure wave.

Speed of sound is dependent on the temperature of the air. Faster in warmer air. What's the temperature of that charge as it's being compressed? High. So the speed of sound is much higher, too.

Typical, normal flame front in air/gasoline mixtures, from my research, is around 100 feet per second. During detonation it can reach 5000 fps, or essentially instantaneous.

Preignition is caused by hot spots in the cylinder igniting the mixture before the spark gets around to it.

Dan

 

[mtuomi]

Preignition and detonation are two different things. Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the mixture, caused by compression and heating of the mixture by the pressure wave.

Speed of sound is dependent on the temperature of the air. Faster in warmer air. What's the temperature of that charge as it's being compressed? High. So the speed of sound is much higher, too.

Typical, normal flame front in air/gasoline mixtures, from my research, is around 100 feet per second. During detonation it can reach 5000 fps, or essentially instantaneous.

Preignition is caused by hot spots in the cylinder igniting the mixture before the spark gets around to it.

Dan

Yes, you correctly described knock, using the incorrect term, detonation. The flame front even during knocking combustion never exceeds speed of sound.

As you said, speed of sound is alot higher when the surrounding air is hot (pressure has a slight effect on this as well but the temperature is much more important).
During knocking combustion, you can indeed measure very very high combustion velocities. But when combustion chamber mixture temperature is 1000C, there the speed of sound is way higher than what they are.

Yes I'm being pedantic, but the difference is very important. Supersonic combustion brings many new challenges and is way more violent, than subsonic combustion.

There are ways to estimate/calculate the combustion velocity. Knock always happens when the piston is already going down. Knock can be easily seen as a "ripple wave" on a cylinder pressure measurement, after TDC and peak cylinder pressure, "knock window".

Knowing the piston speed and cylinder volume, and knowing the amount and amplitude of the pressure variation, you can pretty accurately calculate the combustion expansion velocity.

It's interesting to note, that the pressure increase itself is not the reason why this is harmful to the engine. The mechanisms behind long-term knock damage are much more complicated (boundary layer disturbance etc).

Detonation is a combustion process where the flame front exceeds speed of sound. Anything below the speed of sound, is deflagration.
Combustion in a reciprocal engine never exceeds speed of sound. That means, that detonation never occurs in a reciprocal engine.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Does AOPA still have the PPL weekend classes? Years ago I went to it. The instructor was excellent, explained where you might have problems and on the third day he administered the test. I passed and the rest is history. I went on to be a fair pilot but really have had a lot of fun flying. Do NOT give up! Your almost home!

 

[Dan Thomas]

Detonation is a combustion process where the flame front exceeds speed of sound. Anything below the speed of sound, is deflagration.
Combustion in a reciprocal engine never exceeds speed of sound. That means, that detonation never occurs in a reciprocal engine.

Can you cite a source for that?

Dan

 

[mtuomi]

Can you cite a source for that?

Dan

Even though I know perfectly well this sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about, but unfortunately I cannot cite anything that is publicly available.

Knock is always a very local event and does not spread around much, detonation would spread around much more.

Generally, there is not alot of real scientific data behind abnormal combustion processes inside an internal combustion engine. We are working with models, and they are improved constantly.
My source is about 1TB of lab test data from Robert Bosch AG. Unfortunately I cannot share these

Bosch did a motherload of testing and modeling during the late 90's and early '00s when developing their first direct injection system with lean-burn modes (MED7/9's).
It was noted, that the flame front always stays behind the shockwave(sign of deflagration instead of detonation), and the pressure increase in itself isn't that harmful (well, longer exposure means deformation of piston rings etc, but anyway). One of the biggest problems is, that the shockwave disrupts the boundary layer over the piston, combustion chamber and cylinder walls. This transfers alot more heat to the surface.
This explains the typical meltdown pattern of a piston because of knock.

 

[N801BH]

Even though I know perfectly well this sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about, but unfortunately I cannot cite anything that is publicly available.

.........

...........

 

[MAKG1]

...........

The thing is, he's technically right.

He's just misguided that he's going to change standard terminology.

Like trying to tell people not to use the term Thermos, when the correct terms are Dewar or vacuum bottle. True, but doomed to fail.

In the gas dynamics field, detonation is a supersonic flame front. In the automotive and aviation fields, it's secondary ignition after spark.

Regardless of what it's called, it can cause expensive damage.

 

[azure]

The thing is, he's technically right.

He's just misguided that he's going to change standard terminology.

Like trying to tell people not to use the term Thermos, when the correct terms are Dewar or vacuum bottle. True, but doomed to fail.

In the gas dynamics field, detonation is a supersonic flame front. In the automotive and aviation fields, it's secondary ignition after spark.

Regardless of what it's called, it can cause expensive damage.

Interesting information. I knew the difference between detonation and deflagration, but didn't realize that "detonation" meant something else in internal combustion engines.

 

[MAKG1]

Interesting information. I knew the difference between detonation and deflagration, but didn't realize that "detonation" meant something else in internal combustion engines.

Once upon a time, people thought they were the same thing.

Mtuomi is right. Just, conventional terminology has quite a lot of inertia, especially with large populations of scientists, engineers, and especially technicians.

I've seen some "high speed" footage from the 30s on the topic. The problem is that the quality was low, and while it resolved normal combustion, detonation propagated over less than a frame. That meant it couldn't tell a deflagration from a detonation. But it sure looked like hell. I wish I could find a copy.

 

[N801BH]

Once upon a time, people thought they were the same thing.

Mtuomi is right. Just, conventional terminology has quite a lot of inertia, especially with large populations of scientists, engineers, and especially technicians.

I've seen some "high speed" footage from the 30s on the topic. The problem is that the quality was low, and while it resolved normal combustion, detonation propagated over less than a frame. That meant it couldn't tell a deflagration from a detonation. But it sure looked like hell. I wish I could find a copy.

High speed footage from the 30's... That must make a compelling arguement in any discussion.........

My guess is the declination of the squish band in the cylinder head does not match the piston top profile and combustion chamber which leads to variations in the sub sonic shock wave propagating toward the diverging conical shaped flame front causing rapid wake turbulance of the incoming cooler intake charge and that leads to delamination of the strata charge which upsets that air fuel mixture, resulting in a catastrophic failure of the interpratation of the meaning of intelligent life in the land of fruit and nuts... Ie... California......

There are some damn smart engineers in the private sector and military that refer to devices called ADI that is used to surpress detonation.. Care to look up the defination of ADI.....

Or... the FAA, who claims that lead in 100LL will surpress detonation.

Or.... People who have never experienced a highly boosted internal combustion engine that had the water injection unit fail. or for that matter, never experienced a fuel solonoid failure when the nitrous oxide is still flowing and the resulting instant explosion of the top end of the motor.. The only deflagragation is the "yellow" flag to slow down the field of cars so they can clean up the mess on the backstretch..

So, let's look at where we stand... There a a couple of rocket scientists here who claim the rest of the entire world is full of siht.....

Rant off....... And I feel so much better..