Poor quality of Oxford's ATPL notes...

[muppethead]

Currently studying Phase 1 of ATPL notes distance learning from Oxford Aviation Training.

I just opened the Mass and Balance folder to be met with 4 pages of amendments to be made to the notes.:{
I went to amend them, but they are already amended!! Why have the errata there in the first place?

Iam 75% through phase 1 and I am dissapointed by the poor quality of the notes. They are riddled with spelling mistakes, poor punctuation/grammar and some of the questions contain wrong answers etc, etc. :ugh:

Having paid £1100 for phase 1 and similar for phase 2, I expect the notes at least to have been proof read for spelling mistakes!!

When we buy a 30 pence newspaper every day, we expect the spelling and punctuation to be correct and so I think the same should be said for spending over a £1000 on a document.


Come on Oxford, surely you can do better than this??

[WX Man]

:rolleyes:

Is this the face of concern?

(with apologies to a certain instruments lecturer who teaches on the south coast...)

I can appreciate your frustration- there's nothing worse (OK, barring repeated pokings in the eye with a sharp stick) that doing a professional qualification and being faced with non-professional English or unprofessional use of grammar. I get particularly frustrated with it (as anyone who knows me will testify!).

As I've said in another thread, I've seen lots of schools notes, and with some subjects some schools notes are vastly better than others (I chose my [full time] school based on the quality of their notes). I suppose the trouble with M&B is that it's very much a practical subject, and there's no substitute for good practice at the sorts of questions you might be faced with.

My advice: get yourself some good feedback, practice the questions, and if needs be supplement it with a revision book from another school or a pilot shop.

[subsidence]

hello,

i totally agree with WXMan! The OAT Notes are just unacceptable. Not even spelling mistakes and wrong grammar but also poor schematic description!

This makes Distant Learning quiet hard

regards subsy

[gordonsmall]

I use the Bristol Groudschool stuff, and despite what some people tried to tell me before I bought the course I think they're great!

Also, version 3 of the Brostol software is a great tool.

Regards,
Gordon.

[Send Clowns]

Having seen many sets of notes, I don't think of Oxfords as bad. I could mention 2 sets of notes that are significantly worse. As the author of some notes, it would suggest bias if I said which, but do check the notes before you choose a course!

[redout]

Hey WX Man

What school did you use in the end for ATPL Groundschool and just how good were the notes?
thanks

[GJB]

would have to ask why you are moaning about it here and not venting your spleen to Oxford.

[reynoldsno1]

So why is there not a standard set of notes for the JAA ATPL, based on a standard set of references? Isn't that what it is all about?

[Send Clowns]

In most cases they won't tell us (the schools) what the references are. Kind of makes it hard for HP&L, where the answer frequently depends only on who you listen to!

[Hufty]

I thought the Oxford notes were very good indeed - combined with the brush up courses, it was a good experience for me.

I would agree that there were a few issues with the Mass and Balance notes as I had a load of amendments in mine too (they were issued in 2001 so I am surprised they still haven't updated them) but in general the standard was good.

Hufty

[mad_jock]

I thought they were pretty good as well.

If you want to see crap notes have a look at a set of 4forces or Glasgow Nautical college notes.

4forces were just plain ****e.

And the Nautical college ones are written by Engineers for Engineers from what I could see.

The Bristol notes seem very well presented as well. My m8 is currently working his way through them uses them in conjunction with my old OAT notes to get the best of both worlds.

MJ

[Metsys]

Interesting subject!

Firstly, I am the subject expert in Met at Oxford. Many of you know me, being ex SECOAT, PPSC with courses at Bristol, Pilot Assist, etc.

The original notes were based on the learning objectives.

Don't expect perfect 'newspaper' copy in school notes, the guys writing the notes are just normal guys. Unless someone puts their input through a copy editor at great expense then it will be as the instructor wrote it.

My book in the 'Ground training for Pilots' series was fully edited and it took on a huge difference following the work of the copy editor. Even then there were errors!

Funny old thing, even with the Oxford notes, our student pass the course. Even get jobs! 20+ Oxford students have just started work, this month, 757, 737, etc.

The guys and girls who got the jobs were more involved in the study for their ATPL's than bothering with Pprune in spending time moaning. e-mail time would be better spent as study time.


Why is it that this forum attracts more moans than positive comments? Well look at the results, more people pass without comment!



John Standen

Subject Expert - Meteorology
Oxford Aviation Training.

[oxford blue]

Let me add the following to John's comments:

If Muppethead would like to make a list of comments and criticism highlighting where he thinks the notes need correcting and send it to:

The Chief Ground Instructor
Oxford Aviation Training
Oxford Airport
Kidlington
Oxon ox5 1ra

he will receive a courteous reply and a short note of thanks from us. If his comments are valid, they will be incorporated into the amendment after next. (The next amendment, which may well have already picked some of his points, has already gone to press).

Oxford appreciates constructive comment and always tries to improve following it, if we think it valid. But a generalised whinge on pprune helps no-one!

[scroggs]

Muppethead, do you really believe your daily newspaper to be free of spelling and grammar errors? Your standards in those areas can't be very demanding then....

Newspapers and magazines, notwithstanding my little dig, can afford to have high production standards because of their relatively huge income from both advertising and circulation, and the fact that their staff are employed full time solely to produce that publication. That is not the case with the study notes of any educational institution, with perhaps the sole exception of the Open University.

Amendments to manuals are something you're just going to have to get used to in aviation. You'll be doing them, or at least receiving new CD-ROMs, every few months for the rest of your flying career. Corrections of past errors of English with further errors of English are par for the course. You're lucky - at least your manuals are produced by English speakers. Try dealing with Airbus manuals! And, while we're at it, my manuals for the A340 cost my company a great deal more than what you paid for yours from Oxford.

As Oxford Blue says, if you find genuine errors, report them to the staff. If you're just having a general moan because you had a bad day, let's hope you're not identifiable!

Scroggs

[EGCC4284]

Check this out guy's

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4993

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

You youngsters today don't know you're born!

Way back in the last century (1998) I was struggling through the mighty blue books of PPSC. They were regarded as pretty good at the time but my how you'd be shocked to compare them to the offerings available today.

Cheers

WWW

[zcar]

Fair comment about the notes, but I would be interested to hear whether you found the OAT feedback useful. My experience was that it was excellent. This always used to be included in the price of the course, unless that has changed now?

[keeno]

guys,

you know what, if you can understand the notes, and you can pass the exams with them, then i think you have nothing to complain about...in my opinion, i used the oxford stuff for my Principles of Flight exam.....and i got 90%...enough said...

keeno

[Nearly Man]

ermm, spelling mistakes were the least of my worries while doing my ATPL's ... however, Oxford notes got me through .. and their brush up courses good. I reckon theirs and Bristol's are about the best going!

Anyway, I liked doing the amendments cos it meant I didn't have to study :}

[Ropey Pilot]

EGCC4282

That seems like a pretty decent attempt at pulling up a 3 and a half year old thread which is simply a Bristol GS advertising campaign:suspect:

Having said that - that's where I went and had no complaints at all:ok:

[EGCC4284]

It's not 4282 but 4284

I have nothing but praise for Bristol

I never slag off any other schools as I've never used anybody else and I'm not in a position to make an opinion.

Everyone I have shown my notes to are very surprised and have gone to the extent of saying they were the best they have seen.

I keep plugging Bristol because of the excellent back up service and their positive approach to the customer, you the student.

I also feel sorry for those that have made a mistake and gone to a school that they are not happy with but are unable to change so easily half way through there mission.

I've even shown the notes to some pilot friends of mine who are at the moment working for the airlines and they were impressed with the hard work and attention to detail that Bristol have put into their notes and CD rom.

Bristol also have a forum on their web site that students use and I was shocked to receive an e-mail from my teacher on a late Saturday afternoon with a solution to a question that I had a problem with.

I thought they had the weekends off but who knows.

The choice is yours

Bristol would be mine again

:ok:


Just found this

Have a read of the following

http://www.bristol.gs/news4.htm

:cool: