Header1200x385

× 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.

Take-off Minima - Revision Ex 4, Q12, p230 IREX

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received: 0

dmw69 created the topic: Take-off Minima - Revision Ex 4, Q12, p230 IREX

Hey all - I've been puzzling over this one for a while now - the question asks:

You plan to depart Kalkgurung (172555S 1304829E) on runway 03 on an IFR flight to Tennant Creek via Hooker Creek in VH-OZY. You plan to return to Kalkgurung in the event of an engine failure in IMC after take off. The meteorological minima which apply for this take-off are-
a. 300 ft cloud base and visibility of 2 km
b. 2600 ft cloud base and visibility of 5 km
c. 2800 ft cloud base and visibility of 5 km
d. 1953 ft cloud base and visibility of 5 km
e. 621 ft cloud base and visibility of 3.4 km

The RNP RWY 03 approach chart for YKKG shows LNAV minimum of 558ft cloud base AGL and 3.2km visibility:


But the correct answer is apparently (e), 621ft and 3.4km. I can't understand where these numbers come from - can anyone help? The explanation in the book answer section says "The numbers in brackets".
Thanks
#1
Attachments:

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

  • Posts: 152
  • Thank you received: 20

Bosi72 replied the topic: Take-off Minima - Revision Ex 4, Q12, p230 IREX

How old is your book ?
Mine from Dec 2021 is showing 563ft which is still incorrect, and it is aligned with the "old" procedure from May 2019.



I suggest getting the latest book and contacting Stuart or Bob and suggesting to update IREX Errata
page 230 Q12
[e] 558ft cloud base and visibility of 3.2km

The answer is still valid: the numbers in brackets.

Unfortunately Airservices are changing procedures quicker than the book is updated.
In this case they've changed the procedure in Sep 2022 from 563ft to 558ft which is 5ft difference, which is less than a needle thickness on the altimeter.
#2
Attachments:
The following user(s) said Thank You: dmw69

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

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received: 0

dmw69 replied the topic: Take-off Minima - Revision Ex 4, Q12, p230 IREX

Thanks for the reply Bosi72. I've been using the physical book for reading content on the lounge chair or dining room table, but the online book for doing revision exercises at my computer downstairs in the home office. The version of the question I posted here was from the online book; - only after reading your post did I check my physical book, which for (e) has 558ft cloud base and visibility of 3.2km! If I had have done the revision exercise from my physical book then I would have got it first go and not caused myself all this confusion and wondering!

My physical IREX book was ordered in March this year so I assume it's pretty up-to-date; and I would have assumed the online book is always very up-to-date, more so than a physical book. [Just checked and my physical book has a 'last revised' date in the front of Dec 2nd, 2023].

The approach plate I got from DAP online so it also should be up to date.

Anyway if the correct answer is the figure in brackets in the LNAV line then at least I know I understand the concept and I'm not going crazy.

Thanks again.
#3

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

  • Posts: 198
  • Thank you received: 148

Stuart Tait replied the topic: Take-off Minima - Revision Ex 4, Q12, p230 IREX

Thanks for the heads up, we try our best to stay on top of the changes but some slip through.

I've amended the answer to reflect the changes in the DAP

Cheers
#4
The following user(s) said Thank You: dmw69

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

  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received: 0

dmw69 replied the topic: Take-off Minima - Revision Ex 4, Q12, p230 IREX

No worries Stuart, I'd imagine it's a never-ending nightmare keeping up with all the changes. I'm pleased to know that my understanding of the topic wasn't flawed. Thanks.
#5

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

Time to create page: 0.259 seconds