Formal knowledge in physics

[Martin1234]

My local university is starting a publically financed JAR ATPL distance learning course. The university doesn't require a PPL to start the course but they do require formal knowledge (high school) in physics.

I don't have any formal knowledge in physics but I do have a PPL, so I applied for an exemption. What I need to do is to prove that you need and are taught relevant physics in order to gain your PPL, which could compensate for my lack of formal knowledge.

Can anyone please help me out with any document/text that can prove/describe this for the panel of assessors who allegedly have no knowledge in aviation. My certificate is a helicopter PPL but any document related to fixed-wing would probably do.

Thank you.

[VFE]

I might be wrong here but I was almost certain that the requirement for starting the JAR ATPL course was an ICAO PPL unless it was an approved integrated flight training organisation. How come this university can waiver the PPL requirement?

What university is this? Am I going round the bend? http://www.blastwaves.com/motorforum/images/smiles/eusa_think.gif

VFE.

[Martin1234]

It's the University of Lund, Sweden.

You can start the course and gain academical points without a PPL. You do only need at least a PPL in order to sit the exams at the aviation authority (in accordance to the JAR). There might be someone that just wants to become a ground instructor who doesn't have an interest to sit the exams at the authority.

I guess that formally, you are not allowed to sit the exams at the aviation authority if you don't possess at least a PPL at the time you start the course.

[QNH 1013]

I don't remember there being much physics (except of the most elementary kind) required for the PPL. There doesn't seem to be much either in the JAR CPL exams which is a pity because I'm a physicist and I'm studying for them at present.
There is some simple maths required (cross-multiplication, and similar, plus some simple trig) but nothing as difficult as calculus. At least I've not come across any yet.
Most University Entrance qualifications (in the UK at least) say things like "is normally required" "should have" etc. If you talk to them your will probably find there is a way forward. If they are short of candidates they might suggest a suitable bridging course to bring you up to speed on whatever they feel is lacking.

Good Luck.

[Martin1234]

All right, but how do I convince non-aviation people that I (PPL holder) is suitably qualified compared to non-PPL holders with formal knowledge in physics?

We are very formal here at the Arctic circle and I more or less need some fancy text that describes the knowledge covered for the certificate.

It wouldn't surprise me that someone else that knows absolutely nothing about aviation gets my spot just because I don't have formal knowledge in physics.

[QNH 1013]

Perhaps the best plan is to get hold of the syllabus for the PPL written exams and highlight all the parts of the syllabus that refer to physics (in its wider sense). For example the human performance will almost certainly refer to Boyle's Law, and possibly Dalton's Law.
Then get the syllabus for the flight training, and go through it highlighting all the relevent parts that involve physics. If you stretch a point, most things from dew-point to forces-in-a-turn, to carb-icing can be made to sound relevent. Throw in a few phrases about aerofoils and surface-wind friction effects and a few sentences about the effect of aircraft inertia when encountering windshear and you should be there.
We've not even considered the radio side of things.. ionosphere, interference (wave type) between direct wave and reflected wave giving rise to fading, propagation, etc, the list goes on and on.
What about the engine? Plenty of physics there !
So to start, get hold of the syllabus of the PPL courses you have already done.

[Martin1234]

I was actually thinking of including the syllabus but it's a great idea to highlight everything which could be related to physics. I like your point of view of how much that could be related, which really inspired me to use my highlighter. :)

Thanks for your help.

[malaysian eaglet]

As instructor, I use as reference book: "Physics"by "Arthur Beiser". This book in its whole is of too high level for PPL or ATPL but some passages are quite relevant (force & motion, Momentum, rotational motion, fluids, waves, thermodynamics,magnetism, electricity....).
As a young guy in any case you need such a book in your library to understand the modern world. It is a good investment for your life. Not too much mathematics for a good level