BR-ANAC-AVI common mistakes
BR-ANAC-AVI · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the aircraft's maximum structural takeoff/landing mass as the operational limit and ignoring performance-limited masses (runway, obstacle, climb-gradient, brake-energy), so answers pick the higher structural figure.
Candidates memorise one 'max mass' number and apply it to every scenario, forgetting that the certified limit is only the ceiling and the actual limit is the most restrictive of several computed values.
What to do instead
For every mass question, list all applicable limits (structural, runway, obstacle, climb, brake energy, tyre speed) and select the lowest. Practise questions where the structural limit is deliberately higher than the performance limit.
Reading pressure altitude straight off the altimeter setting without applying the subscale correction when QNH differs from 1013.25, and mixing QFE/QNH/QNE in altitude calculations.
The three pressure references look interchangeable on a written page, and candidates have not internalised which one the altimeter physically displays versus which one is set on the subscale.
What to do instead
Build a one-page reference card: QFE = height above aerodrome, QNH = altitude above MSL, QNE/1013 = flight level. Drill conversion problems until each setting is chosen automatically from the wording of the question.
Applying the standard lapse rate or ISA temperature at the wrong level, or using surface temperature for a density-altitude calculation at altitude, producing a plausible but wrong performance figure.
Lapse-rate arithmetic is simple enough to do from memory, so candidates skip writing out the steps and lose track of whether they started at MSL or at the aerodrome elevation.
What to do instead
Always write the full chain: elevation, QNH-derived pressure altitude, ISA temperature at that level, then deviation, then density altitude. Never shortcut the intermediate values.
Confusing indicated, calibrated, true and ground speed, and using TAS where groundspeed is required (or vice versa) in wind-triangle and fuel-planning questions.
The four speeds differ by corrections that are invisible in a text question, and candidates match the number in the stem to the formula they remember rather than to the definition required.
What to do instead
Label every speed in the working with its definition and the correction applied. For wind triangles, state explicitly that groundspeed and track come from the vector sum of TAS/heading and wind.
Answering right-of-way and interception questions from intuition about who is 'bigger' or 'faster' rather than from the prescribed categories and order of precedence.
The rules are categorical, not intuitive; candidates reason from airmanship instinct and pick the answer that feels polite rather than the one the regulation mandates.
What to do instead
Memorise the precedence list as an ordered ladder (balloon, glider, airship, then power-driven by category and state) and the converging/approaching-head-on/overtaking cases as separate rules. Test yourself with mixed-category pairs.
Mixing up the roles of the pilot-in-command, the operator and the authority when answering questions about responsibility, documentation carried on board, and reporting obligations.
The three actors overlap in real operations, and candidates assume 'the operator' is always the answer for anything administrative and 'the PIC' for anything operational without checking the specific rule.
What to do instead
For each regulation topic, make a three-column table (PIC / operator / authority) and place each duty in exactly one column. Review before the exam and check the stem for which actor is being asked about.
Misreading stability and stall questions by assuming a rearward centre of gravity is safer or that a lower stall speed always means a safer aircraft, rather than reasoning through the moment and angle-of-attack consequences.
Stability and controllability trade off against each other, and candidates hold a simplified mental model ('more stable is better') that breaks down when the question asks about handling or recovery.
What to do instead
Work every CG question through the moment equation and the resulting change in tail-down force, then state the effect on stability, stall speed, and control authority separately. Do not use 'safer' as a single verdict.
Underestimating human-factors questions by choosing the answer that describes what a good pilot should do rather than the one that describes the actual perceptual or cognitive limitation being tested.
The distractors are written as ideal behaviour, and candidates conflate 'correct procedure' with 'correct explanation of the underlying limitation'.
What to do instead
Read the stem for the word 'because', 'due to' or 'caused by' and answer the mechanism, not the remedy. Revise the sensory-illusion, hypoxia, decompression and fatigue mechanisms as cause-effect pairs.
Interpreting weather charts and reports by pattern-matching symbols instead of decoding each group, so a TEMPO or BECMG group, or a PROB30 qualifier, is treated as a certain forecast.
METAR and TAF groups are compact and candidates skim for the headline wind and visibility, missing the change groups and probability qualifiers that change the operational meaning.
What to do instead
Decode every report group by group onto paper, writing the meaning beside each group, including change indicators and probability. Practise until the qualifiers are the first thing you notice.
Answering communications questions with non-standard phraseology that conveys the right idea but is not the prescribed phrase, and mis-ordering readback elements.
Plain English feels adequate and candidates do not practise the exact wording, so they select a plausible-sounding but non-standard option.
What to do instead
Learn the standard phraseology as fixed strings, including readback requirements and the order of elements in a clearance. Rehearse full exchanges aloud rather than recognising phrases passively.