CPL Groundschool practice - is it legal?

[patience]

Hi guys!

I'm not long into all this and am looking around at ground schools to help get me through ATPL hopefully by distance learning, and have come up against another oddity in aviation:

Compulsory Groundschool Attendance (oh yeah, and the huge fee).

My girlfriend has already bought me several of the ground school guides from Oxford (which are brilliant) and I've covered a lot of the main subjects. However I am told that I must attend several weeks of brush-up/detailed learning with their instructors in Oxford before going for the exams. I would have to travel down to the school (if I eventually sign up with them), take five(?) weeks off work (most of my annual holiday, albeit spread out a bit) and part with up to £2000.

I explained this to my girlfriend (more of a moan really), and was surprised when she questioned the legal basis of the practice, particularly under a wider European legal framework (more commercial law).. if I can buy 100% of the (approved) written material from Transair and Pilotwarehouse from three-four of the major groundschools, buy a shed-load of practice papers from them at the same time, why should I then pay a school £2000 for the privilege of marking a few progress tests, and loosing all my holiday etc?

The safety argument is fulfilled by the very tough exams.

It looks like a protectionist practice that has gone unchallenged, I know its JAR Law (and has got some sort of statutory instrument guarding it or something), but why?

Why is there a law to force me to pay one of a dozen schools a lot of money to fulfil my dreams? They don't sit the exams for me. I already have the material evidently adequate for me to pass the exams with.

Has anyone any thoughts on this, what am I paying for and why am I having to pay it (morally or legally)?
Mike

[Keith.Williams.]

It might (clearly does) look like a rip-off to you at the moment, but you will eventually see the benefits. After attending the compulsory residential part of their distance learning course, the vast majority of students realise that they would never have passed the exams without it.

Most start this phase of the course feeling very unprepared for their exams, but finish it feeling fully ready and eager to get on with them. It all depends on the quality of the training of course, but most schools do a very good job of preparing their students for the exams.

The cost of all of this depends upon which school you choose. Some will charge very high prices, while others will not. The price charged has more to do with the marketing strategy of the school than with the quality of the training. Choose wisely and you will get value for money.

Starting out on this (ATPL) road by purchasing study guides is most certainly the wrong thing to do. Before anyone starts buying anything they should note that in order to qualify to sit the exams they will be required to complete a JAR aproved course of training, which may be full-time or distance learning. The various study guides are intended to help students who are doing this formal training, but these guides can never replace that training.

[no sponsor]

If you are moaning about paying £2000 for groundschool, I think you might be in for a suprise as to the cost of the flying bit. You'll need to budget about £30,000 for your PPL, CPL, IR, ME and MCC courses.

The groundschool is the insignificant part of the whole for becoming a ATPL holder (in terms of cost that is).

There's a course at Cranfield which offers distance learning for about £1000, but you need to do a scholarship paper to obtain the 50% discount.

[RichardH]

Patience, it is quite clear from your comments that you are new to this game and have also failed to do your homework.

In the "good old" national CAA days it was possible, though very unusual to teach yourself and go and sit the exams without any further training. This all ceased when JAA came into force in 1999/2000.

JAA regulations clearly state that ALL of the training must be from an approved provider and some element of your training MUST BE classroom based.
For students on full-time courses this is clearly no problem. Those on distance learning MUST attend ususally a 2 week brush-up. This isn't for fun or to rip you off, it should be used to get you prepared and directly targeted at the exams, whereas the course material should cover the syllabus as laid out in the JAA objectives. Also JAA require the training organisation, usually the CGI to actually sign each student off as being capable of passing the appropriate exam, the CAA could revoke approval if this was system was being abused.

As an experienced instructor, I have not met one person (including experienced RAF/RN pilots) who have not found the brush-up courses of benefit & useful. Irrespective of the law you should look on the classroom work as a bonus and not as a chore.

You must go shopping around the various schools and find the best one to suit your requirements and pocket. Ask to see their training material or even sit in on lessons for half a day, that should give you a good idea.
Any reputable school would confirm the above comments.

You must accept that you are trying to enter a very regulated and narrow profession, moaning about clearly defined rules is not going to earn you any friends, you certainly will need the PATIENCE of a saint.

Advanced warning :-
1. prior to your CPL or IR skills test with a CAA examiner YOU MUST pass a pre-assesment (I think it's called an F170A)

2. prior to getting a type rating you are going to have to sit a WRITTEN type rating exam of some description.

I could go on, but the most useful thing your girlfriend could do for Christmas is to buy you a copy of the CAA Lasors which clearly explains all the above.

[scroggs]

This is not a 'protectionist practice', and there are many, many bloody good reasons why the attendance of a ground school is, and should be, compulsory - many of them given above.

However, I would not be at all surprised to learn that one EU (JAA) law is directly countermanded by another EU law!

Scroggs

[patience]

First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your generous inputs.

Keith Williams, if that is you, author of the excellent 1000 ATPL Questions series, may I first congratulate you on your fantastic work (I have four), please hurry up with one for GNAV! But I should point out that your contribution here is ironic. You are helping people to the extent that brush-up school becomes more redundant. Which is good.

The argument for ratifying a (eg EU) law just because ‘it is good for you’ is ludicrous. There is an opt out clause (ask any Frenchman).

Total Value for £2000 after following a distance learning course:
Complete set of notes/practice papers (as purchasable from all good pilot shops)
A Two week brush-up course (no doubt useful, but why compulsory?)
The marking of 50+ progress tests (man-hours, nice personal progress check, but why compulsory?)

The above is a luxury, something to help you pass your exams. I would pay for it anyway. But I should not be forced to purchase the package as a pre-requisite to entering the important bit-the exams.

There’s no law to make you have driving lessons from a DoT Approved Driving (or any) School before you put in for a test, and there is no law that says I have to attend a DfEE approved course of tuition before you attend an A-Level in Genetics, even though a structured course may well be ‘helpful.’

Laws that constrain consumers for no real benefit should not be tollerated.

If I am going to waste £750 by hazarding an unready assault on the exams, it should be my look out. I am not going to be allowed to endanger anyone, as no pass equals no CPL equals no job.

Gents, I am not attacking sense. It is evident that one needs every bit of help to get through the ATPLs,. What I am attacking is a rule that forces me to give a large sum of money to an organisation for what amounts to very little work on their part. The massive amount of support literature in the market obviates the need to trundle several hundred miles, loose time off work and time away from family when it is just not necessary. It does not take into account existing qualifications, background or experience.

Why does this law exist?

RichardH: Thanks for pointing out that this is a recent addition to the law books. This should make it easier to find out where the rule came from. I generally do my homework, its generally what distance learning is about! Lasors is a good stocking filler, but does it tell me why this law exists?

nosponsor: I’ll never moan about anything, but I will challenge an unjust principle. The £2k is not an issue, for the reasons you point out. (Aside from the point -the £1000 Scholarship looks like a myth as I look at the two main ATPL ground schools at Cranfield. Infact judging by the websites, one of the schools could be a myth).

scroggs: fair play, I totally agree it’s good for me. But so is a good tailor. But it doesn’t directly relate to a safety or standard statistic. The 70% pass mark for the CPL/ATPL does.

Anyway, if you haven’t guessed already I’m stuck at this computer for other reasons. I read an article in our local paper recently about an elderly lady who complained to her MP about some EU directive governing local council’s power’s to charge her for cleaning dog crap up (or something similar), anyway she was delighted when her MP followed (it) through, and had the ruling reversed. If I get time (unfortunately I am tied to this desk and not allowed to study) I will fire a letter off.

Same for VAT on aviation training. Why? I am finding it hard to find many other forms of training/education that are taxed in such a way. What’s different? I’ll save that one for a rainy day unless anyone knows how far we’ve got on this front?

thanks all, happy flying
Mike

[scroggs]

I think the intention of this rule is to ensure that you receive some proper, in-depth, tutoring in the subjects required by the ATPL, rather than spend your time learning the minimum necessary to answer the exam questions. It is a moot point as to whether these 'brush-up' courses are what the ruling was intended to achieve! And there is no doubt that these courses financially underwrite many schools in these somewhat lean times. It may well be that such a law is too blunt an instrument, but it exists - and it won't be changed by a letter to your MP. It would need consistent lobbying by the various national aviation authorities to change things. As they were the organisations that drew up the rules, only a few short years ago, I think it may be some time yet before any serious reviews are undertaken.

However, the rules were instigated and applied by the Joint Aviation Authority, not a committee of self-interested schools, so there are no grounds for accusing the schools or their employees of some kind of unethical practice. There is no 'opt out clause' for JARs - if you wish not to abide by them, you will not receive a licence to work in aviation. Simple - and even the French have to abide by these rules.

In UK, before these courses were compulsory, the vast majority of ATPL students attended a brush-up course for each phase of the exams anyway, simply because the pass rates of those who didn't were very poor! You don't have an infinite number of attempts at these exams, and retakes are very expensive (and that's another subject....), so I'd get off the soap box and go and do the brush-up course. If you still feel the same way once you've completed your licence, then you might want to begin your crusade against the multi-state behemoth!

Scroggs

[RichardH]

Patience/Mike

Why should I buy a TV licence?
It doesn't improve reception, it's just a LAW that you should have one. I don't like paying for it but I accept its a LAW.

You clearly DON'T do your homework otherwise you should know
that the exam pass is 75% not 70% as you stated and has been the case for at least 10 years.

Aviation is seen as a "luxury" item hence there is no longer a vocational qualification (used to be an NVQ level 4). Therefore there is no tax or VAT reduction or benefit. People were also abusing the system hence, HM Customs stopped any further VAT reclaims.

Again if you read LASORs it recommend that anyone attending these courses should have Maths, English & Physics/Science at GCSE level C+. I have seen students with NO qualifications to those with Doctors, aviation is a great leveller and most students will be good at one thing and not at another and visa-versa.
Attending a course you find that students tend to help each other out in addition to support from their school.

As you state you need as much help as possible passing these exams you have a funny way of showing it. Remember you are
going to HAVE to go via an approved school. .....

The sentence ".....what amounts to very little work on their part...." is an bloody insult. Lots of dedicated instructors have spent hours of time (some of it unpaid) and effort in first of all working out what on earth the objectives were all about, translating this into teaching material then with experience producing quality questions. Writing material, updating it, preparing courses, supporting students takes a great deal of work.
This is why there is NOW "massive amount of support literature". QED.

If you want to join this exclusive club, then the sooner you learn to accept the facts get on with the well established & PROVEN system the better.

Well said Scroggs.


QuiteEasilyDone - and the rest of the world

The brush-up element IS COMPULSORY and is for YOUR benefit.

[patience]

Woah boy!!

This isn’t about disrespecting the hard work and dedication of the many upstanding British training providers. This is about challenging something that is fundamentally wrong.

scroggs has pointed out that this is a David and Goliath situation, for which I have no appetite (or time, or delusion) for pursuing. And in reality Goliath always wins. Especially if his main weapon is bureaucracy. So I wouldn’t get annoyed about it, I was merely trying to find out if there actually was a valid reason behind it. I am now more interested in what the CAA’s official line is.

Look at the big picture, there will remain a massive market for brush-up courses, tuition, and all sorts of other value adding services. But there will not be a fixed £2000 (+/- £200) neo-cartel rate, no one would stand for it. Market driven, not centrally planned.

This is a consumer issue, and there are plenty of organisations who would take this up out of self-amusement. My girlfriend has taken the p*** out of me for upsetting ATPL schools everywhere, so I’ll be leaving it at that.

QuiteEasilyDone, thanks for that. Bristol do look good.

[Alex Whittingham]

Both sides of the argument have merit. Why should you have to do a course? If the exams were of adequate quality they alone should be a test of your knowledge and capability. If you know your stuff you should be able to apply for and take the exams whether you have done a course or not. What the requirement for compulsory training actually does is subtly acknowledge the inadequacy of the exams.

Another part of the argument, as yet unstated, is that the fees charged for ground training in this industry are derisory by normal standards. A two week course in management training, for instance, would set you back the best part of three grand. The prices have settled at about £1700 - £2200 because that is pretty close to cost, anyone offering courses at less than £1500 is, for sure, losing money.

Prices are so low because if we are honest about it we are on a trend where more and more of the Central Question Bank is in the public domain. At some stage in the not so distant future you will be able to pass the exams just with blagged feedback papers, the quality of the ground training you received will make little difference. If the quality makes that little difference the prices are driven down by minor operators trying to compete without putting any money into course development or delivery.

The end game is an unsatisfactory conclusion, not a million miles away from the FAA system where you just learn the questions, except in this case you would have to pay a few hundred quid to an 'approved school' for a cr*p course just to make it legal.

If that's what you want, fine. If it's not, the exams need to be sorted so you can't just learn the questions, and quickly.

[six-sixty]

What might be informative is to hear from anyone who's done and passed the exams - and still thinks the brush-up courses were an unecessary luxury.

I'm 1/4 way though the studying myself and can't wait for some quality classroom time, though I accept we're not all born equal. It all looks straightforward when you read the text, but I've done enough reading here to believe that there must be lots of pitfalls to lookout for.

[RichardH]

Well said Alex.

Patience,

"....I am now more interested in what the CAA’s official line is.
..."

As everybody has been telling you THIS IS the CAAs official line,
they are doing what they are told by JAA.

The market is already customer driven, (subject to the rules we ALL have to work within) ask some of those who lost thousands to schools closing because they failed to meet their overheads.
I can think of some schools fully booked and others just about ticking over, there must be a reason.
Price is only part of the equation, quality of materials and training should be the prime driver. As I said earlier you must shop around and pick to your needs and budget.

Best of luck Patience, you're going to need it.

[patience]

RichardH,

At the end of the day, the law should be impartial and fair to all. Me having to pay you £2000 to listen to your expert guidance, gleaned from 40 golden years of experience is, however bountiful, insightful and inspiring, nonetheless, unfair.

Having to pass a set of exams in order to fly 300 people is fair.

I am not challenging the great benefit of attending ground school. I am challenging the law that says I have to. The law that the CAA chose to ratify, en-block from Brussels. The law that didn’t exist five years ago. The law, I feel, some might be upset if it was rescinded.

But you know I’ve got a point. You can sense the ridiculous (okay set your own gags).
take care

Mike

[scroggs]

Patience, the CAA didn't 'ratify' the ruling that made these courses compulsory. There was no choice available to them. It was a political decision that the UK would become part of the Joint Aviation Authority; once that decision was made, the CAA's role was to represent the UK within the organisation as it developed its regulations and standards. Once those regulations were agreed, there was no possibility of being able to choose which parts of Joint Aviation Regulations we accepted and which we didn't.

You might think it's unfair. You're entitled to that opinion, but your understanding of how it came to be is incomplete. As for your accusations of the schools running a 'neo-cartel', you are at liberty to ask the Competition Commission to investigate. However, as you are very new to this industry and its procedures, I would spend more time studying and less time criticising. When you have a genuine feel for how the industry works, you may be better placed to voice a considered and credible opinion.

Are you intending to be a crusader throughout your aviation career? If so, I wish you luck and fortitude. You'll need it! You'll also need a thorough understanding of your subject....

Scroggs

[Turbo Rick]

Me having to pay you £2000 to listen to your expert guidance, gleaned from 40 golden years of experience is, however bountiful, insightful and inspiring, nonetheless, unfair.

If you ever do get up the front (which going by your amazing attitude is doubtful), you WILL have to listen to someone with more experience... and by god you better be ready to take advice and guidance.

Sort yourself out NOW lad!

[benhurr]

If you hadn't spent the money on the notes, guides and other support material prior to seeing what the rules were, you could have saved a great deal of money.

The £2K covers all of that material - it also includes invaluable support through the self study period and the "brush up" course I attended probably covered more material than I had learnt up to that point.

I think, as Alex has already alluded to, that a major problem is occuring - people thinking that learning the answers is enough to get them through.

The exams are there to check that you have sufficient knowledge of the subject - they are not just a hurdle which has to be passed before progressing to the glamourous flying side. Your knowledge will be assessed at future occasions - interviews etc. and you wont have a list of answers for those questions.

Air Law was probably the most ridiculous exam I have ever sat - but it has also turned out to be pretty important for an aviation career.

There are some errors in all of the notes - how are you going to find out what those errors are without listening to expert guidance, gleaned from 40 golden years of experience?

Finally, the brush up course I attended was good fun and it was nice to have a final check that I was ready to sit the exams.

I do happen to agree about the charging of VAT though...

[keg167l]

This thread seems to have wandered from what was a valid and legitimate comment about the enforced residential component of a Distance Learning programme, and the expense incurred. I support your comment, Patience, and would go further, questioning the need for such micromanagement in the approval process.

I fail to see the need for the JAA or CAA or any other AA to dictate just how a course is to be conducted, particularly a DL course. There are numerous examples in the academic world of DL courses in which there is no residential component at all, without detriment to the standard of instruction or pass levels. The UK Open University is a good example; they reduced many of their formerly compulsory summer school components to voluntary attendance some years ago. It is known that these weeks are good value to many students, and attendance is recommended – but not enforced. If a student does not take advantage of them, and fails the course, then who is the loser? Very many US online courses do not require attendance either.

I support the oversight of training establishments by a standards authority, but they should be limited to training content, and not methodology. If I wished to offer a ‘course’ comprising a list of books from the library and a study guide, I should be able to do so. My future would be decided by the results of my students.

If candidates wish to take the exams, the examining authority should accept their application (and money). If they pass they have shown that they meet the expected standards of the exam; if they fail then they have wasted their money.

As Alex says:
“If the exams were of adequate quality they alone should be a test of your knowledge and capability. If you know your stuff you should be able to apply for and take the exams whether you have done a course or not.”

I wonder at the agenda being followed with the current approval system. Why insist on a school producing their own notes (often thinly disguised plagiarism of standard textbooks, or other schools’ notes)? Why insist that lessons are delivered in a particular fashion (based on military methods that are not necessarily suitable to modern pedagogical and technical advances)? Surely market forces will separate the winners from the losers?

RichardH said:
“JAA regulations clearly state that ALL of the training must be from an approved provider and some element of your training MUST BE classroom based.”

Since the JAA is the sum of the elements, and the CAA is an influential part of the committee dealing with FCL, the CAA must bear some of the blame for this statement. Until recently the classroom element was not mandatory, just advisory.

Fortunately the JAA is handing over its roles to the EASA, who will be considering FCL in a year or two (we hope). There should be time for any lobbying to take place to get this intrusive ‘regulation’ removed. Then schools will be free to meet their customers’ wishes. It will be for the examiners, those independent beings whose only goal is to seek out those with superior knowledge and understanding of aviation, to set the bar.

There will, of course, be a need for some rules; there always is. The current thoughts of EASA are in http://www.jaa.nl/jaa_easa/Transition%20from%20JAA%20to%20EASA/Draft%20Essential%20Requirements%20for%20Licensing.pdf

Paragraps 1b. and 1c seem sensible enough, setting requirements without saying how it is to be achieved. Can they stop at that?

[batty]

One reason that I can see is that given time and a fixed examination question bank, all the questions will be known. The exam will merely become a matter of knowing the questions and not the theory behind the subject. Putting some compulsory study into the package at least ensures people have had to study the full subject to some degree. For every one person willing to study, there are hundreds who just will do the bare minimum. When I went through training a fellow student came back the night before the exams asking what he thought he should brush up on! Strangly enough he failed!

This is a method of regulating the theory and yet allowing for a fixed and multinational exam bank. Question papers are extremely hard to write, just look at the first few JAA exam series, before the wrinkles were ironed out!!

[keg167l]

Batty,

I agree with everything you say, but that happens now. You only have to read the requests for "feedback, feedback, feedback" to know who is banking on learning the questions rather than the answers. How is requiring a mandatory residential phase in a Distance Learning course going to prevent that?

Any exam is going to be in the public domain after it is given. A school with more than a handful of candidates can get them each to memorise a few questions and report them back. Isn't this how the current crop of 'feedback' was obtained?

Back to the fundemental point. Someone convince me that the current CAA/JAA regulatory system (particularly concerning DL courses) is more for the good of the student than the training organisations; and why does 500 hours in a multicrew environment mean that I can avoid all that? (Lasor G1.5)

keg

[batty]

Keg1671


Thats the whole point. By ensuring that people have to do some formalised training even the people who just beg for feedback are forced to go through theory in a structured method in a classroom. Exams are supposed to examine knowledge, but now they are being watered down to the extent that they just test knowledge of the exam.

I did my initial training in the States and I remember people were up in arms because the FAA had decided to change the order of the answers in the question bank, this effectivly stopped people just learning the answer to X is B! They had to at least read the answers ...do we want to go this way? I hope not.

As for the 500hrs, its amazing what you learn by osmosis. The system has already been watered down under JAR a few things like this along the way are there to ensure that the end product is a well rounded compitent knowledgable pilot, not just a guy/gal who has jumped through the hoops and knows nothing but where the hoops are.

[Send Clowns]

Batty has an excellent point that I would have made had he not. It supports Alex's call (that I think the other ground instructors would echo) that the exams themselves need to be examined.

Another point to consider is that, although it is a greater expense to the school, every school I know of offers more than the legal minimum of training. I can assure you that this is not done frivilously. That time is needed to cover the areas that need to be looked at. Some of the classroom material, ironically considering what Batty said, is about exam technique and how to cope with the way the questions are written.

[keg167l]

Batty wrote:
Thats the whole point. By ensuring that people have to do some formalised training even the people who just beg for feedback are forced to go through theory in a structured method in a classroom.

The brushup course was sold to me as "preparation for the exam, lots of feedback and practice exams" with no mention of formalised instruction. I have not got to that stage yet so can't confirm it, but coming at the end of the course there can't be much new material to work on, and it might be bit late for remedial treatment.

I was discussing this with my father; his comment was "Is this brush up thing a fancy name for Revision?"

I agree that there should be a requirement for some form of training programme to be have been undertaken before taking the exams. All children have to have some form of schooling, but not necessarily in a state school; there are other forms, even 'non-traditional' schooling such as home schooling.

I agree that any organisation offering that training should be subject to some form of quality oversight, and registration/approval, but that this oversight should limited to content and student management. All school are subject to inspection by the authorities.

I do think it is the business of regulatory authorities to involve themselves in the minutia of where, when, and how the teaching is delivered. With the variety of teaching and learning styles, and the expanding technology available, such interference cannot be in the interests of the student.

If I have any supporters out there I can see that we would constitute a very small minority, so this will be my last word on the subject. I shall go with the flow, get through the hoops, and get out into the sunshine again

Keg

[RichardH]

I find it amusing that those complaining about the system, are yet to actually do it. Perhaps time and experience might enlighten them, but I doubt it.

The brush-ups/revision I have run certainly did contain formal instruction in addition to practice exams, feedback & exam tips/techniques. It's the little tips & tricks that aren't written in any book that makes the difference, also the way an instructor puts the point across often makes the penny drop.

Even if the brush-up wasn't mandatory I can assure you this wouldn't bother me (or other schools I suspect) as the VAST majority of students can't wait to be given pearls of wisdom from experienced instructors. QED old CAA system.

I should be the first the say the system isn't perfect but learn to live with it and bend with the wind. When JAA is finally replaced I suspect the new system might contain even more requlations, so get studying NOW.

[Keith.Williams.]

Having been involved in the provision of ATPL training for a number of years, both by full time and distance learning courses, I am a firm believer in the value of consolidation training. Even with the best books in the world many students simply do not understand much of the material.

Over the years I have lost count of the number of times students have said things like "Why is it not explained so clearly in the notes" or " I have learned more in a week with you than I did in six months reading books". I do not claim that this is a reflection of my teaching skills. The fact is that it is much easier and more efficient to get complex subjects across in face to face discussions.

Having said all of that, I think we are stretching the truth a bit too far if we suggest that the JAA requirement (for at least 10% classroom training in any course) is the product of any truly logical thought process. We need only to look back to the original concept to see that this is not the case.

The original idea was that students would be required to take all 14 examinations in one sitting. It was only after protests from the schools (who were horrified at the probable effect of this on their pass rates), that the JAA relented. But even then they only relaxed the regulation sufficiently to permit the taking of all 14 exams in two sittings. This two-sitting rule is the main reason why most schools provide courses based on two modules.

After many protests and much debate the rules were again relaxed to permit students to take the exams in whatever groupings they wished. In response to this change a number of schools have switched to a three module system, which permits students to concentrate their efforts on a smaller number of subjects at any one time.

In my experience most consolidation courses are a mixture of formal training in the form of a review of the more complex aspects of the material, plus a good many practice examinations based on feedback from previous JAR exams. Most importantly, to be truly effective the process must include detailed debriefs of these practice examinations. It is this debriefing process which (done properly) enables the student to understand why an answer is correct, rather than simply learning which answers are correct.

The vast majority of students currently studying for their exams would be unable to pass most of them without the benefit of consolidation training. Even with the benefit of consolidation training a small number of students repeatedly fail some subjects. In most cases these students eventually pass only after carrying out further consolidation training, often with a school that was not their original training provider. This does not mean that the original training provider was inefficient, but simply that a change of emphasis or teaching style often makes the difference between success and failure.

Now let's get back to the original question of whether or not it is reasonable to make consolidation training compulsory. Personally I think that it is not reasonable. More importantly, it is not an effective way of ensuring that students actually understand the material they are studying.

As stated by Alex, the real problem lies in the exams. The current system uses a relatively small number of questions, most of which test knowledge of facts. The JAA should construct a proper question bank, using a very large number (tens of thousands) of questions. If these questions tested comprehension, it would be impossible for students to get through simply by learning the answers to a limited number of questions.

One school currently provides a consolidation course for a subject using approximately 185 feedback questions. The students taking this course often find that the vast majority of the questions in their subsequent JAR exam come from this list of 185. This observation is not intended as a criticism of the school in question. They have created a consolidation course that is very effective in getting students through this particular exam. But this situation clearly indicates that too few questions are currently in regular use for that subject.

The problem in setting up an improved question bank is the fact that the creation of such a system would involve a great deal of effort on the part of the JAA. But once the improved exams were set in place, students could be freed to carry out their studies in whatever manner they wished. But at the end of the day I suspect that there would still be a lot of business to be done in the provision of consolidation training.

[scroggs]

keg you questioned the JAA's remit to determine the methodology of pre-examination instruction. While there may be much wrong with both the logic and the structure of the current ground exam regime, you should bear in mind that this is a professional not an academic qualification. Unlike a degree, which may have absolutely no relevence to an individual's career, the ATPL ground exams are an integral part of the process of becoming a licenced airline pilot, therefore the method of obtaining that qualification is quite rightly under the jurisdiction of the regulating authority.

The same is generally true of professional qualifications in other fields.

[englishal]

You're not required to attend compulsory ground school if you already hold a foreign ATP.....

EA

[Keith.Williams.]

The dispensation given to existing ATPL holders is very relevant to this discussion. It undermines the argument that compulsory consolidation training is intended to ensure that students actually understand the material.

If the JAA have such a low opinion of the FAA system, why do they allow existing FAA ATPL holders (who presumably just learned the answers to the questions) to bypass this element of quality control? It is of course a fudge, just like the bridging course route devised for ex-military transport pilots.

This post is not intended to be an argument for making all applicants do the full JAA aproved course (although the theoretical knowledge of some of the FAA and ex-military students that I have taught has been pretty sketchy to say the least). My purpose is simply to highlight one of the more curious aspects of our system.