ATPL 070 Operational Procedures common mistakes
ATPL 070 Operational Procedures · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating 'flight time' in FTL rules as block time from off-blocks to on-blocks, and using that figure when checking daily and cumulative limits.
Everyday logbook habits and flight-planning software display block time, and the two figures are close on short sectors, so the distinction never surfaces until a long sector or a multi-sector day pushes the total over a limit. The candidate then cannot see why the answer key rejects an apparently compliant roster.
What to do instead
Before each FTL calculation, write down which definition the question is testing: flight time (wheels-off to wheels-on for aeroplanes, per the applicable regulation) versus duty period versus block time. Recompute the roster using the correct figure and check the cumulative limits (7-day, 28-day, 12-month) as well as the daily one. Practise converting a four-sector day both ways so the gap between the totals becomes intuitive.
Reading aerodrome operating minima off a single published table and applying the same visibility and ceiling to every approach type, without adjusting for approach lighting, runway lighting, displaced thresholds, or the category of the aircraft.
Minima tables are dense and candidates memorise one row, usually the ILS CAT I row for the runway type they trained on. They forget that the operator's minima are derived from the published procedure minima plus an increment, and that the increment depends on facilities actually available and serviceable.
What to do instead
Work minima problems in a fixed sequence: identify the approach type and aircraft category, note which ground facilities are stated as available or unserviceable, apply the operator increment, then check the ceiling/visibility pair against the reported weather. Do at least ten worked examples where one facility (approach lights, TDZ lights, glide path) is failed, and state in writing how each failure changes the number.
Assuming that a technical defect may be deferred simply because the item appears somewhere in the MEL, without checking the rectification interval category, the operational (O) and maintenance (M) procedures, and any associated performance or route limitations.
The MEL is treated as a simple permission list rather than a structured document with categories A to D and explicit conditions. Candidates also forget that the CDL is a separate document and that a missing or damaged item on the CDL may carry its own performance penalty.
What to do instead
For every MEL question, extract four things: the item, its category and therefore the deadline, the (O) procedure including any flight crew action, the (M) procedure, and any stated limitation on routes, weather, or performance. Then test the proposed flight against each of those. Learn the category definitions by heart and rehearse one category A, one B and one C example end to end.
Planning fuel to the regulatory minimum only, treating the contingency allowance as a fixed percentage of trip fuel regardless of the route, and omitting the additional fuel needed for a specific operational risk such as an isolated destination or a forecast hold.
Textbook examples usually give a clean percentage, so candidates apply it mechanically. They also confuse final reserve with contingency and with additional fuel, and forget that taxi fuel, alternate fuel and final reserve are separate line items that must all appear in the calculation and in the in-flight fuel checks.
What to do instead
Build every fuel answer as an itemised column: taxi, trip, contingency, alternate, final reserve, additional, extra, total. State the rule you are applying for each line and justify any deviation from the percentage method with a named risk. Then add the in-flight monitoring: the fuel check points, the decision fuel, and the action if a check shows a shortfall.
Confusing the roles in operational control, for example assuming the commander may override a dispatch decision on load or fuel, or that the operations control centre can authorise a deviation from the MEL.
The regulation assigns specific responsibilities to the operator, the operations control function, the commander and the ground staff, and questions often hinge on who holds the final authority for what. Candidates generalise 'the commander is in charge' to every decision, including commercial and airworthiness ones.
What to do instead
Draw a two-column table: decisions the commander has final authority over (flight safety, acceptance of the aircraft, deviation from rules in an emergency) versus decisions owned by the operator or its operational control (dispatch, MEL deferral, load control, crew rostering). Attach one worked scenario to each row. When answering, name the role that owns the decision before choosing the option.
Computing mass and balance with the zero fuel mass index or the take-off mass index but forgetting to apply the last-minute change or the fuel index, and then declaring the aircraft within limits without checking the centre of gravity envelope at both take-off and landing.
Load sheets present several figures and candidates grab the most visually prominent one. The dry operating mass, the index, and the fuel correction each shift the CG, and the landing CG differs from take-off CG as fuel burns. Candidates also forget that a forward or aft limit can be breached with total mass still inside the structural limit.
What to do instead
Use a fixed worksheet order: dry operating mass and index, traffic load and index, zero fuel mass and index, take-off fuel and index, take-off mass and CG, trip fuel, landing mass and CG. Plot or compare against the envelope at both take-off and landing. Do one example with a last-minute change applied after the load sheet is issued, and state which figures must be recalculated.
Filing or interpreting an ATS flight plan without checking that the route, levels, alternate and endurance entries are consistent with the operational flight plan, and misunderstanding the purpose of the decision point or re-dispatch procedure.
The ATS flight plan and the operational flight plan are prepared by different people or systems and candidates treat them as one document. Re-dispatch is often learned as a formula without understanding that it requires two calculated destinations and a defined decision point with sufficient fuel to reach either.
What to do instead
Learn the two documents as separate artefacts with separate purposes and entries, then practise cross-checking them item by item. For re-dispatch, draw the route with the decision point marked, label the fuel required to the re-dispatch point, from the point to the first destination and to the second, and show the condition that must be satisfied at the decision point.
Answering dangerous goods questions from general knowledge of what is hazardous rather than from the classification, packing, labelling and notification requirements, and forgetting the commander's notification and the occurrence reporting obligations.
The subject overlaps with everyday chemistry and shipping常识, so candidates answer by intuition. The regulatory detail, such as which classes may be carried, what the notification to the commander must contain, and when an incident must be reported, is highly specific and easy to blur.
What to do instead
Build a one-page summary per class with the hazard label, the packing group concept, and the carriage conditions for passenger versus cargo aircraft. Separately memorise the commander's notification content and the reporting triggers for dangerous goods incidents and accidents. Answer questions by locating the requirement in that summary rather than by judging the substance.
Treating emergency equipment and abnormal procedure questions as recall of checklists, without linking the equipment to its certification requirement (number, location, serviceability, date check) or to the phase of flight in which it must be available.
Candidates memorise the memory items of a few drills but not the equipment schedule, so they cannot answer how many extinguishers, life rafts or first aid kits are required for a given passenger seating capacity or route. They also forget that equipment must be serviceable before dispatch and that inoperative items may fall under the MEL.
What to do instead
Make a table of equipment against the requirement that drives it: number of seats, distance from land, overwater sector, cabin configuration. Add the inspection interval and the MEL cross-reference for each item. Rehearse two abnormal scenarios where an equipment item is unserviceable and decide whether dispatch is permitted, deferred, or prohibited.
Ignoring the performance planning assumptions behind the take-off and landing charts, in particular the assumed obstacle accountability, the wet or contaminated runway corrections, and the difference between the dispatch and en-route alternate criteria.
Performance charts are used as lookup tables and candidates take the first number that matches mass and temperature. They forget that the chart already embeds assumptions (clearway, stopway, obstacle clearance, braking action) and that changing any of them invalidates the result. Alternate selection criteria are likewise treated as a single weather rule.
What to do instead
Before reading any chart, list its stated assumptions in the margin and check each against the question's conditions. Apply corrections explicitly and in the order the chart requires. For alternates, learn the separate weather criteria for destination, dispatch, en-route and isolated aerodrome cases, and practise deciding which criterion applies from the wording of the scenario.