Wrong Answer on instrument written question (ASA PrepWare)

[azure]

I'm working through each and every question for the instrument written using ASA PrepWare. I know that some FAA test questions are deliberately designed to be impossible to answer with the information given (due to such things as the MSA being unreadable on an approach plate, that sort of thing) and so you just have to memorize the answer. I'm also a little nervous about the enroute time/fuel burn calculation questions since in some of them, it looks to me as if there isn't enough information to solve the problem (e.g. a flight log form box for an approach leg is left blank: usually the "descent" leg time is given and you're supposed to assume that the descent includes the approach, even though the leg, as logged, ends at the IAF). So that's what I'm working on now.

Anyway I ran across the question where you're supposed to calculate the fuel burn for a flight from GJT to DRO given an average fuel consumption rate of 17.5 gph. The flight times for all but the second leg are filled in and that comes out to about 26 minutes, for a grand total of something like 68 minutes flight time. On my calculator, at 17.5 gph, that works out to 19.8 gallons burned, so I would have chosen 20 gal (answer B) as my answer.

But according to ASA, the correct answer is 17 gal (answer A) and they even show their work: 1:08:50 flight time at 17.5 gph works out (says ASA) to 17.3 gallons.

Right. Flight time is >1 hr, yet the fuel burned is LESS than the amount burned in 1 hour?! (Or is there an FAA-standard hour of 70 minutes that I don't know about??)

Obviously ASA's answer (or at least their calculation) must be wrong, but what I'm wondering is whether the FAA also considers the correct answer to be A, and if so, why?

 

[AdamZ]

Liz speak with your CFII. I recall when I got my IR I ran into something similar. IIRC the actual answer the FAA was looking for was incorrect it drove me nuts. I think in order to get the answer scored as correct you had to just put down the answer the FAA wanted.

My advice is to review the question with your CFII and then you or both of you should contact ASA. ASA may very well tell you that they know its incorrec but its what the FAA considers correct.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA provides only the questions, not the "officially correct" answers, so the test prep developer has to work out which one is deemed correct for the purpose of the test prep package. If they somehow get it wrong, that's the way it is in their package. Only way to cross-check is to see what someone else says is correct, e.g., see what the answer is in the Gleim or Jepp package for that question compared to ASA's answer, because the FAA won't tell you which one they think is correct.

 

[mantakos]

I'm not familiar with any "impossible" questions in the test bank. I don't recall encountering any in the study guides, and certainly didn't encounter any on the actual test.

I wouldn't get too worried about this. The problems are far more likely to be with your study guide than with the test bank, itself. Ultimately, you only need a 70, and if some kind of error or impossible question is going to have any impact on your score, it's inconceivable that it's going to be significant.

Focus on learning the material in such a way that your knowledge will keep you safe and legal in practice, and passing the test will just be a formality.
-harry

 

[Areeda]

Liz,

Send and email to Jackie Spanitz (Jackie (at) asa2fly (dot) com)

She does the test prep and has been very good at answering questions and taking reports of inconsistencies.

Like Ron said, the answers in these test prep guides is in no way "officially correct"

Joe

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Liz,

Send and email to Jackie Spanitz (Jackie (at) asa2fly (dot) com)

She does the test prep and has been very good at answering questions and taking reports of inconsistencies.

Like Ron said, the answers in these test prep guides is in no way "officially correct"

Joe

I can second what Joe said. Jackie's been very responsive and helpful when I've reported things... (it's always been my mistake, too, not theirs! She handled it gracefully).

 

[RotorAndWing]

I can't answer to the extent that the FAA has already changed the question bank, but for some time now the agency has no longer provided the questions to the public. So there is a good chance that question isn't even applicable or has been completely rewritten.

Best to know the subject matter before taking the exam.

 

[azure]

I talked to my CFII today about this question. He said that if I'm confident of my answer, to put it down and not what ASA says, for the reason Ron gave, that the FAA doesn't tell anyone the answers so ASA's solution can't be "official".

R&W, that's the first I've heard that FAA doesn't even publish the questions any more. Are you sure about that? If that's true then it doesn't make any sense to work all the questions in the PrepWare suite anyway and I might just as well go ahead and take the written. OF COURSE I'm studying the material, not just the questions!! The reason I'm studying the questions ALSO is because of the "gotcha" questions.

If the FAA has changed the questions then maybe this isn't true anymore, but the question I was thinking of specifically is one about the MSA for a flight arriving at an IAF somewhere out West from a specific direction. They give the approach plate, there are two sectors with different MSAs. One is legible, the other is poorly reproduced and impossible to read. Guess which one applies for the arriving airplane in the question? The Kings used that question as an example and John made a sarcastic comment about the illegible number. I thought for sure the FAA would have corrected it by now (that was the 2004 edition of the King course), but I found the exact same question in ASA, with the same unreadable MSA on the plate. I downloaded the actual plate to answer the question. I'll have to go back and look it up and post it here.

But again, if those questions aren't even the actual ones in the test bank, then it's all pretty pointless.

And no, I need a 90 not a 70, unless I switch CFIIs and it's pretty late in the game for me to do that. My instructor will not sign off a student for the checkride unless he or she gets at least a 90 on the written.

Thanks for the helpful replies.

 

[EdFred]

I talked to my CFII today about this question. He said that if I'm confident of my answer, to put it down and not what ASA says, for the reason Ron gave, that the FAA doesn't tell anyone the answers so ASA's solution can't be "official".

R&W, that's the first I've heard that FAA doesn't even publish the questions any more. Are you sure about that? If that's true then it doesn't make any sense to work all the questions in the PrepWare suite anyway and I might just as well go ahead and take the written. OF COURSE I'm studying the material, not just the questions!! The reason I'm studying the questions ALSO is because of the "gotcha" questions.

If the FAA has changed the questions then maybe this isn't true anymore, but the question I was thinking of specifically is one about the MSA for a flight arriving at an IAF somewhere out West from a specific direction. They give the approach plate, there are two sectors with different MSAs. One is legible, the other is poorly reproduced and impossible to read. Guess which one applies for the arriving airplane in the question? The Kings used that question as an example and John made a sarcastic comment about the illegible number. I thought for sure the FAA would have corrected it by now (that was the 2004 edition of the King course), but I found the exact same question in ASA, with the same unreadable MSA on the plate. I downloaded the actual plate to answer the question. I'll have to go back and look it up and post it here.

But again, if those questions aren't even the actual ones in the test bank, then it's all pretty pointless.

And no, I need a 90 not a 70, unless I switch CFIIs and it's pretty late in the game for me to do that. My instructor will not sign off a student for the checkride unless he or she gets at least a 90 on the written.

Thanks for the helpful replies.

Is this the same instructor that seemed to do everything else with a bizarro world lesson plan too?

 

[azure]

Is this the same instructor that seemed to do everything else with a bizarro world lesson plan too?

Not sure what you mean. He's got his quirks, that's for sure, but I don't think I've posted anything about his lesson plan.

 

[EdFred]

Not sure what you mean. He's got his quirks, that's for sure, but I don't think I've posted anything about his lesson plan.

Just from reading some of his methods you talked about, I would have dropped him before lesson 3. But that's just me. I would still tell the CFII "GFY" if I scored an 88 and he refused the sign-off.

PS - I got a 90 on my IR written. 3 questions (all flight planning ones), I just skipped because it wasn't my flight, not my plan, and didn't feel like figuring out the answer with partial work. I randomly picked an answer without looking at the question on all 3 and got all 3 wrong. I told the DE that at checkride time and he just laughed.

 

[poadeleted20]

I can understand an instructor refusing to give a written test endorsement until you score consistently well on practice writtens. We upped our written test pass rate at the university from 50% to 100% when we told our students they wouldn't get the endorsement to take the written test until they got at least 85 three times in a row on the Gleim practice test system. However, I don't see the point of refusing to sign someone off for the practical test just because they got less than 90 on the actual written test. The written tests really don't have that much relevance to practical flying, and I'm sure the folks at the test center would look at you pretty oddly if you came back for a second try after getting 88 the first time.

 

[Areeda]

I can't answer to the extent that the FAA has already changed the question bank, but for some time now the agency has no longer provided the questions to the public. So there is a good chance that question isn't even applicable or has been completely rewritten.

Best to know the subject matter before taking the exam.

I'm not sure if the FAA publishes actual test questions or not. They do publish sample questions (http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_questions/) which seem to cover the material well. It certainly is not a complete list, and as stated above it does not contain answers.

I can understand an instructor refusing to give a written test endorsement until you score consistently well on practice writtens. We upped our written test pass rate at the university from 50% to 100% when we told our students they wouldn't get the endorsement to take the written test until they got at least 85 three times in a row on the Gleim practice test system. However, I don't see the point of refusing to sign someone off for the practical test just because they got less than 90 on the actual written test. The written tests really don't have that much relevance to practical flying, and I'm sure the folks at the test center would look at you pretty oddly if you came back for a second try after getting 88 the first time.

This is similar to how we do it. If a student is taking our ground school for credit they need a practice test with 100 questions and get 70% to pass. A 80% gets an endorsement. We did our own practice test software because we wanted to a) see results by questions for the whole class and b) have an on-line forum to discuss questions. It was way more work than it is worth but it's nice now that it's done (as much as any software).

I can almost understand an instructor saying "I won't sign you off unless you get 90%" to motivate studying. I can't imagine not signing off someone who passed with a 70.0% unless he/she showed weakness during oral prep. We've all seen people who a) are afraid of the written or b) don't take it seriously.

Joe

 

[azure]

I can understand an instructor refusing to give a written test endorsement until you score consistently well on practice writtens. We upped our written test pass rate at the university from 50% to 100% when we told our students they wouldn't get the endorsement to take the written test until they got at least 85 three times in a row on the Gleim practice test system. However, I don't see the point of refusing to sign someone off for the practical test just because they got less than 90 on the actual written test. The written tests really don't have that much relevance to practical flying, and I'm sure the folks at the test center would look at you pretty oddly if you came back for a second try after getting 88 the first time.

Probably so. I think he thinks it would be a bad reflection on him as an instructor to send a student for the checkride who didn't do very well on the written.

 

[azure]

Also, I know he's concerned that the oral will be so grueling if the student has a not really great written score that s/he'll be too tired to fly well.

Or it could all be bluff. I wouldn't put that past him.

 

[poadeleted20]

I can't imagine not signing off someone who passed with a 70.0% unless he/she showed weakness during oral prep.

I wouldn't care if s/he had 100 on the written -- if s/he shows weakness on the oral prep, s/he keeps working with me on that until the weakness is gone before I sign the practical test endorsement and 8710-1 for the checkride. I've learned that the written test score has little relevance to practical test knowledge requirements, so we train to proficiency regardless of the number on the paper.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think he thinks it would be a bad reflection on him as an instructor to send a student for the checkride who didn't do very well on the written.

I disagree. Almost all my PIC clients have taken and passed the written before I even meet them. The examiners I've worked with don't give a hoot about the written test score as long as it's above 70, and they judge my work solely on the applicant's performance during the practical test. And that's fine with me!

BTW, the vast majority of examiners these days say their oral is the same regardless of the written test score -- they're testing the practical knowledge to the PTS standards, and the written is irrelevant ancient history other than filling a square in the eligibility checklist.

 

[Areeda]

I wouldn't care if s/he had 100 on the written -- if s/he shows weakness on the oral prep, s/he keeps working with me on that until the weakness is gone before I sign the practical test endorsement and 8710-1 for the checkride. I've learned that the written test score has little relevance to practical test knowledge requirements, so we train to proficiency regardless of the number on the paper.

I agree completely.

In my (possibly warped) view of the world the written test is a study guide, that tests rote learning. It does an adequate job of covering topics but is really incapable of testing understanding.

In order to be a safe pilot you have to understand the material. Oral prep is a must do lesson before the endorsement.

Joe

 

[azure]

Just from reading some of his methods you talked about, I would have dropped him before lesson 3. But that's just me. I would still tell the CFII "GFY" if I scored an 88 and he refused the sign-off.

BTW I have to say, what "methods" are you talking about?? I don't think I've posted anything about his way of teaching, but maybe I've forgotten. The only thread I remember posting was about his changing altitude to make our Mode C altitude look like our assigned altitude when our Mode C was off by 200 feet and ATC was making an issue of it. That's ancient history though.

 

[bobmrg]

I talked to my CFII today about this question. He said that if I'm confident of my answer, to put it down and not what ASA says, for the reason Ron gave, that the FAA doesn't tell anyone the answers so ASA's solution can't be "official".

R&W, that's the first I've heard that FAA doesn't even publish the questions any more. Are you sure about that? If that's true then it doesn't make any sense to work all the questions in the PrepWare suite anyway and I might just as well go ahead and take the written. OF COURSE I'm studying the material, not just the questions!! The reason I'm studying the questions ALSO is because of the "gotcha" questions.

If the FAA has changed the questions then maybe this isn't true anymore, but the question I was thinking of specifically is one about the MSA for a flight arriving at an IAF somewhere out West from a specific direction. They give the approach plate, there are two sectors with different MSAs. One is legible, the other is poorly reproduced and impossible to read. Guess which one applies for the arriving airplane in the question? The Kings used that question as an example and John made a sarcastic comment about the illegible number. I thought for sure the FAA would have corrected it by now (that was the 2004 edition of the King course), but I found the exact same question in ASA, with the same unreadable MSA on the plate. I downloaded the actual plate to answer the question. I'll have to go back and look it up and post it here.

But again, if those questions aren't even the actual ones in the test bank, then it's all pretty pointless.

And no, I need a 90 not a 70, unless I switch CFIIs and it's pretty late in the game for me to do that. My instructor will not sign off a student for the checkride unless he or she gets at least a 90 on the written.

Thanks for the helpful replies.

According to Jackie, the new question banks will be delayed until next month, meaning that ASA's (and Gleims, and the Kings, et al) test prep books will be updated in September or later.

She (and someone from Gleim, the Kings, et al) are meeting with the question writers in OKC next week, so she might be delayed in replying to your inquiry.

Bob Gardner