What are the ATPL's worth in the real world

[caramel]

While visiting a computer store yetserday and mrs c was looking about I picked up a A level book of maths and then flicked through the physics as well.

Most of it looked quite easy seen most of it in groundschool, by the way I never done my A levels if I had I think the groundschool would have been easier now I know why to get sponsership you needed maths and physics A levels.

Anyway, how can you compare the 14 exams to say A levels are they that standard or what would there equivelent be???

Comms you can't really compare but met was deep and so was a few others so does anyone know what the whole course is worth in the non flying world?

[122.45]

Not a lot, to be honest. Most people won't have a clue what they are anyway (which may be an advantage, because they sound better than they are). People here often ask if the ATPLs are equivalent to a degree, but they're not. Lots of information to remember, but not much deep understanding.

FWIW, I'm doing a part time degree - one year is supposed to be a minimum of 750 hours study, and it takes three years to get a degree. ISTR that the ATPLs are also supposed to be a minimum of around 750 hours study? That would make them equivalent to the first year only, sounds about right.

[scroggs]

The ATPL exams are highly specific, require little or no understanding, and in many cases actually promote incorrect answers to the questions they ask. In essence, they are an exercise in rote learning which can largely be dispensed with as soon as the exams are passed. In terms of their equivalency to other examinations, I'd put the 14 exams as equal to 3 or 4 GCSEs and no higher. The amount of study required is fairly irrelevant - all exams require large periods of study.

ATPLs are just one, relatively small, hurdle on the course to becoming a commercial pilot.

Scroggs

[Ropey Pilot]

Agree with scroggs on this one. SOME peole who either left school pretty early or dispensed with maths physics etc for history philosophy etc do have difficulty with the exams. I have also heard the 'equivilent degree' angle bandied around.

From my personal experience there isn't anything in the 'basics' that isn't covered at O level or earlier and all the 'specific' stuff is, as already said, just learned by rote with very little need for understanding - and quite often just plain wrong.

The comms papers are a joke (people do walk out after 3 mins having finished), Mass and balance is remembering about 8 different 1 line descriptions and one formula (small mass over big mass = small distance over big distance). Met is a large subject, but really just short term knowledge retention and so on.

I don't wish to belittle people who have difficulty with the exams (if there was a GCSE in philosophy I wouldn't stand a chance of passing), but the fact that some people do find them difficult (as do people taking GCSEs) doesn't mean they are it just means that that type of subject is not your forte.

ps to those who struggled and passed - well done :D . To those who are struggling to pass - keep it up and good luck :ok:

[High Wing Drifter]

There are a couple of things about the ATPL that are over-egged in my opinion. The maths required is a subset of the GCSE syllabus and as such is pretty basic really. The course itself cannot possibly be compared to a degree. The requirement is 650 hours of study. This is six months full-time or a year part-time (or there abouts). A degree roughly is the equivelent of 2,000hrs of study or about six years part-time. As I don't have a degree, I am looking to start a masters soon after my ATPLs are out of the way. The study time is estimated at 1,800hrs...so that is a three year course part-time.

The ATPL theory stuff would be the equivelent of say a UK NVQ (National Vocational Qualification); the course that cooks, mechanics and plumbers do at Further Education establishments.

[Evo]

As I don't have a degree, I am looking to start a masters soon after my ATPLs are out of the way.


HWD, out of interest, can you do a master's degree without first having a bachellor's degree? They are usually a postgraduate degree (unless you went to Oxford or Cambridge). There are the fudged 'undergraduate' master's degrees, which are a bachellor's degree plus an extra year leading to pseudo-master's degree - they give you an 'M' to make you think the extra time was worthwhile, but are really extended undergraduate degrees. However, as they're 4 years full time it doesn't sound like what you're doing, and as a lapsed academic i'm interested in who has broken with tradition.

Scroggs, sorry for wandering wildly off-topic in your forum :)

(edit: d'oh, can't spell :O )

[High Wing Drifter]

HWD, out of interest, can you do a master's degree without first having a batchellor's degree?
A bit OT but...yes indeedy! I didn't realise for some time, but there are alot of accademic opportunities for those without degrees but with considerable experience in the subject matter. I have about 15 years IT experience so am eligible for a veritible myriad of computing related postgraduate courses :D This is the easiest route for somebody like me to attain a degree. Many may ask why, but they are still asked for (regardless of experience) and can be very handy if trying to attain enough points to emmigrate. Basically, to have a degree is always better than to not.

[caramel]

I agree with scroggs when some right answers are actually wrong. I know the exams weren't too difficult but what i'm trying to get at is the depth you go into the subject (some) I went on a residential course with the hours of 8.30 to 5.00 every day for 5 months most of it i'm not sure why we needed to know it but it is a hurdle you need to pass.

We were taught the whole syallabus rather than passing the exam which works for some not for others. I spent a year in uni and to be honest it was a breeze compared to the ATPL's and after finishing them I really don't think there's a course I couldn't do (bring on astro physics!).

The exams might not be a high standard giving the multi choice questions but the course content seemed too go in more depth than what I had studyied in uni hence the post!

[Bodie]

Scroggs, you have compared the workload for all 14 ATPL exams with 3 or 4 GCSE's. I do not agree.

Firstly, any comparison of this nature is almost futile, even comparing degrees. Why? Well to explain we first need to look at the required standard to just PASS the exam.

The workload and effort a person has to put in to most qualifications is directly proportional to the result/grade they wish to achieve at the end. Nearly all courses, including GCSE's, A levels and Degrees have such wide pass tolerances, that it is possible for a student to strategically put in as little work as possible to achieve a pass. The pass mark for most Bsc degrees is somewhere in the region of 40% - very low indeed.

Such courses also provide the opportunity to use coursework to bolster this grade. I remember re-submitting my GCSE English coursework countless times in order to improve my grade, and hence my overall chances of passing the subject.

The ATPL has a very LOW pass tolerance. The 75% pass mark is much higher than any traditional course, and would equate to a grade A at GCSE and a First Class Honours Degree at Degree level. This pass mark demonstrates a MINIMUM amount of effort that must be put in to the ATPL, and this constitutes a lot of work and a lot of effort.

I would also like to counter the claim that the knowledge of the ATPL is shallow compared with that of a degree. This is wrong. Most graduates leave University with a wide general knowledge of their subject area, which is the intention of most degrees. This is almost identical to the philosophy of the ATPL. I speak having achieved a BSc and a Masters.

I often read posts referring to the ATPL’s as easy because the level of mathematics is not much higher than GCSE. This frustrates me somewhat as it implies that the difficulty of any subject relies on the complexity of the formulas that have to be used. This is clearly incorrect. There are many subjects out there with little or no mathematics that people find difficult. General Navigation is one of those subjects – very easy maths but it is often the concepts that people have trouble with.

It is often easy to forget how much work we, as individuals, have put in to achieving our qualifications. Think of the number of people on your ATPL course that found it easy - probably only a very small percentage. Lets not do ourselves an injustice by telling those wanting to start ATPL's that it was easy, but similarly lets not give the impression that it’s incredibly difficult.

Everything is achievable with hard work.

Bodie.

[Pauliejet]

I don't think that you can qualify the difficulty of the ATPL's so universally. Perhaps each candidate finds some parts easy and some more challenging, some near impossible,regardless of their ability to pass GCSE, NVQ or other exam previously. It certainly did not feel like a minor hurdle to me, and I have the usual back-catalogue of dusty old school certificates.
There is an organisation called UK NARIC, that determines equivalency of qualifications. Perhaps a call to them may provide a clearer picture than random guesses of how an ATPL series may compare to other tests?

[grafity]

Hi there, this is slightly off topic but can anyone compare and Irish Leaving Certificate with the A Levels and the ATPL.
It's just that I've just finished my leaving cert and I'm a wannabe. I've got higher level phys/chem and maths, I knew that they'd be important in the long run.

[High Wing Drifter]

IMHO, the ATPLs make a very interesting course. You get a bit of everything - Law, Physics, Nav, Medicine, Psychology, etc... - and you get to apply it in the aircraft.
I agree 100% with that. I have enjoyed the study mainly because of the stuff I always wanted to know but for which, the inclination never materialised.

[no sponsor]

I would agree that they are not like the equivalent of a degree. But degrees are very different; they are (well should be) about exercising intellectual muscle by taking established theories and finding holes in them, or questioning their foundation. (I admit, I was the one who did the degree in philosophy)

ATPLs are about understanding and remembering: much more like O or A levels.

But ATPLs are hard work, and I would dip my hat to anyone who has obtained passes in all 14 subjects. (They seem much harder than when I did my O-levels - and physics wasn't one of them)...

Of course, IMHO.

[scroggs]

Well, you could discuss the pros and cons of this argument for ages and still be no nearer an agreed answer. I think that as you progress through your flying career you will understand just how little knowledge is required for the ATPL ground exams, and how little relevance they have to your overall career.

I was in the somewhat unusual position of having been flying for 20 years, and many thousands of hours, in four-engined long range transport aircraft when I took the exams. I didn't require any new knowledge other than to know what the wrong (but officially correct) answers to certain questions were, and what was regarded as the most correct answer in the many questions that examined your English rather than your aviation knowledge! That took me about four weeks, and I passed all the exams at first sitting. I am well aware of the quantity of work required for those of you new to the subjects, but even the most evangelical groundschool instructor would probably agree that the quality of knowledge required is not high.

However, it's really a superfluous argument because you have to do them however difficult or easy they are, and no-one's going to give you any academic recognition for it. As you move further through your career, you'll realise how relatively insignificant the ATPL exams (and their build up) really are. That doesn't make them easier now, I know!

Have faith that once they're over, you needn't go back over that ground again!

Scroggs