BR-ANAC-PCA-IFR common mistakes
BR-ANAC-PCA-IFR · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating IFR alternate-aerodrome planning minima as identical to the approach minima actually flown, and selecting an alternate whose weather forecast sits just at the published approach minimum without applying the required planning add-ons.
Candidates memorise one set of numbers for the destination and reuse them for the alternate, forgetting that alternate planning minima are derived by adding prescribed increments to the approach minima and depend on whether a precision or non-precision approach is available.
What to do instead
Build a two-column planning table for each flight: destination minima and alternate planning minima, each with the applicable approach type. Before selecting the alternate, write the derived planning minimum beside the forecast and confirm the forecast provides a margin above it.
Reading a SID or STAR chart as a sequence of fixes and then flying it without briefing the published speed, altitude and gradient constraints, so the aircraft is high and fast at the first constrained waypoint.
Charts are scanned for track and distance because those are the visually obvious elements, while textual constraints in the tabular section are skipped under time pressure.
What to do instead
Brief every procedure with a fixed four-item scan: track, altitude constraint, speed constraint, climb gradient. State each aloud before departure and set the constraints in the flight management system rather than relying on memory.
Answering questions about take-off, approach and landing minima without first identifying the approach category, the reported visibility or RVR, and whether the operator is approved for low-visibility operations.
Minima tables are dense and candidates jump to the row matching the approach type, ignoring that the applicable column changes with aircraft category and with the type of reported visibility.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed order of operations: classify the aircraft, identify the reported visibility source, then read the table. Practise reading tables until the classification step becomes automatic.
Applying the semi-circular rule or cruising-level selection without checking the magnetic track, the applicable flight level allocation scheme and any published direction of cruising levels in the airspace.
The rule is taught as odd/even by track, and candidates forget that the boundary is defined by magnetic track and that some airspace uses a different allocation or transition altitude.
What to do instead
For every level question, first compute the magnetic track, then state the rule being applied and the direction of flight, then select the level. Note the transition altitude and any local allocation scheme before answering.
Interpreting an ILS deviation indication or a navigation-aid failure without distinguishing between a full-scale deflection, an on-course indication and a warning flag, and without stating the missed approach action.
Candidates learn the geometry of the localiser and glidepath but not the meaning of the receiver's flag states, so they treat a flagged or unreliable indication as a valid one.
What to do instead
Study each indication as three possibilities: valid on-course, valid off-course, and invalid or flagged. For each, state the required crew action, ending with the missed approach trigger and the first action after it.
Holding entries are chosen by visualising the hold on the chart rather than by applying the entry sector to the inbound or outbound track, leading to a teardrop entry where a parallel entry is required.
Candidates rely on mental rotation of the hold pattern, which fails under exam time pressure and with unusual wind or hold orientations.
What to do instead
Use the track-based method: determine the outbound track of the hold, compare the aircraft's heading to it, and apply the sector boundaries numerically. Draw the hold and the entry sector on paper for every practice question until the calculation is routine.
Answering meteorology items about icing, turbulence and thunderstorms by naming the hazard without linking it to the specific conditions, levels and forecast validity period in the question.
Hazard names are familiar and candidates stop at recognition, missing that the question asks which phenomenon, at which level, during which validity window.
What to do instead
For each weather question, extract the four data points first: phenomenon, level, time window and location. Then answer only after all four are identified, and discard options that contradict any one of them.
Treating radiotelephony readback requirements as optional, omitting the readback of clearances, level instructions and frequency changes, or using non-standard phrasing in the answer.
Candidates focus on the content of the clearance and treat the readback as a formality, forgetting that certain items must be read back verbatim and that standard phraseology is assessed.
What to do instead
Memorise the readback-required list as a checklist and practise writing full readbacks for every sample clearance, including call sign and the words 'read back' items. Compare against standard phraseology, not just plausibility.
Answering human-performance items by selecting the most intuitive or morally appealing option rather than the one describing the actual perceptual or cognitive limitation, such as the effect of expectation on interpretation of an instrument indication.
Human factors content feels like common sense, so candidates answer from intuition and miss the specific mechanism, such as confirmation bias, channel capacity or the narrowness of attention under stress.
What to do instead
Learn each concept with a concrete aviation example and a named mechanism. When answering, identify the mechanism first and then choose the option that describes it, rejecting options that merely sound sensible.
Handling an emergency or abnormal scenario by jumping straight to the final action, such as turning back or descending, without stating the initial priority of maintaining aircraft control, navigating and then communicating.
Scenario questions reward decisive-sounding answers, and candidates skip the prioritisation sequence that the syllabus expects to be demonstrated.
What to do instead
Structure every emergency answer as control, navigate, communicate, then manage the abnormality. State the immediate actions, the navigation or level decision and the communication in that order before describing any recovery.