ATPL Question Banks?

[XL319]

Are the questions contained in the QB's the same as you will get in the ATPL exams?

Just seems too good to be true if so.

[nmcpilot]

Bristol groundschool is word for word yes, some of the questions aren't but not many. Not too good to be true, all of the teachers on your groundschool course will probably tell you not to use Bristol but its because they know when you do you will easily pass without much work lol. Groundschool is easy.

[XL319]

That's what was worrying me....

using the question banks makes it easy. Should it be as easy and do you actually learn anything if you just cram the question banks

[deltaxray]

I agree XL319. I did 7 exams in april and missed one. However others in my class who just crammed bristol 2 weeks before came out with all passes:mad::mad::mad:. I studied again to repeat the one i failed and got a high mark. Id rather pass by studying than by memorising answers. I can definitly say that those who memorise question banks will be caught out eventually. Their great for practise but in the long run your only kidding yourself. This is not something you can do a half ass job with. If you dont know your stuff, your not just letting yourself down but your also letting those people who put their trust in you to get them from A to B safely down.

Thats my 2 cents:}

[Alex Whittingham]

The short answer is no, it shouldn't be easy. There are two things you need to do on your ATPL course:

1. Get a sound technical background for your career in aviation. Sure, a lot of it isn't relevant but a lot of it is, and the relevance also varies from job to job. You'll need the knowledge particularly in your technical interviews for your first job and in your first one or two type ratings where it will be assumed you have a certain level of knowledge. If you go for an FI rating you will have to teach much of it but at a lower level.

2. Pass the exams. In an ideal world the exams would test item 1. Unfortunately we are not in an ideal world and they don't. There are many questions even the instructors couldn't answer unless we knew which was the 'correct' answer.

Its a big, and common, mistake to concentrate on item 2 above at the expense of item 1.

[XL319]

I agree and looking at some of the questions i have often scratched my head thinking what the hell does this question have to do with aviation.

The same could be said with the PPL /IMC confuser also.

[expedite08]

Pass the exams by any means! Its ticks in the boxes thats all. HOWEVER and a BIG HOWEVER, then go back to all the material and learn it!!! Generally you wil absorb it better too without the exam pressure! You will only be fooling yourself by not learning what you need.

At the end of the day common sense prevails, use the resources to get ticks in boxes quickly ( as is required!) then learn for life!! :ok:

[Mikehotel152]

Commercial Pilots will tell you that a high percentage of the content of the ATPL course is not used when you fly commercially, so does it really matter how you get through the exams?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I actually found studying the subjects very interesting and that encouraged me to read it carefully and actually understand it. If you don't have that motivation then perhaps you're doing the wrong thing!

The fact of the matter is that the Question Bank undoubtedly makes it easier to get a high grade, but it isn't a substitute for proper studying. I used a mixture of studying the Bristol GS course materials and then spending two weeks going through the QB over and over again. I met plenty of people who would have failed the exams without the QB because they didn't want to read the whole course. That kind of attitude and 'mis-education' scares me!

I can say that I didn't use the QB for Module 1 but did use it for Module 2. My average grade for Module 2 was 10% higher than for Module 1. I attibute it to the QB.

[nmcpilot]

Well I do agree that you do generally pick up a bit of a sound technical knowledge from sitting in the classes for 6months. Then 2 or 3 weeks before the exams just nail Bristol non stop. Subjects like Met and a couple of others I found interesting and I learnt alot, but I mean c'mon Communications? I can honestly say I sat through a couple of hours of Comms lessons learnt nothing new and still got 100% in both exams.

Many of the integrated guys here, not all but a few I find they pass all the exams and do rly well but when it comes to actually applying the useful things they have learnt (those who have zero hours I mean) they just can't apply it, like I've had to teach a few of them how to do flight planning etc even though they went through everything in ground school they just have no idea when it comes to applying it practically. So to me for the most part ground school was just something to get out of quickly and move onto the CPL, I still look at my Met books etc and learn new things, but at a more leisurly pace and its info I might actually NEED at that time, just trying to learn 15books cover to cover in 6months is a bit of a task rly...

I got on fine passed all 14 first time 91.5% average but meh you'll see when you get through it and move on whether you actually remember a swash plate pump thingy or whatever inside and out.

[David Horn]

I used the question bank for Phase 2 at Oxford, but only increased the average mark by 1% (from 95% to 96%). On the other hand, it was a lot more reassuring to walk out of an exam having seen virtually all the questions before.

For something like air law, where they could potentially ask unlimited questions, I think it was incredibly useful. For things like systems and principles of flight, I felt that being able to pass the exams by knowing the questions is a fairly dangerous route to take. I know people who are quite prepared to admit that they have no idea how a gas turbine engine works, but who still scored in the high 90s.

With flight planning and gen nav, we took in charts with all the routes highlighted. The invigilators are clearly aware of this, and I fail to understand why it's not being passed back to the powers-that-be to be fixed.

At Oxford everyone on my course did spend the time learning the syllabus and then used Bristol for the JAA exams, since otherwise there was massive potential to be screwed over by the school finals.

If things stay fairly constant, I personally would recommend only using Bristol in the week before the exam (and not before school finals if at Oxford).

If you're committing 75k to an integrated course, you are doing a disservice to yourself by not thoroughly learning the content. It's not as if you're going to get the opportunity to do anything else for the six months of groundschool. :)

[Deano777]

Also the QBs are great, but the CAA have a funny way of introducing new questions all the time, and also tinkering with current ones, so if you just learn the questions and not the content you will get bitten up the ar$e in the exams.

Know the content, back it up with the QB, pass the exams, move on.

That's how it should work

[Mikehotel152]

nmcpilot and Alex - Having a real understanding of the subject is the ultimate aim but this is probably easier to achieve in a 6 month classroom than a distance learning course.

I can't be certain of that hypothesis because I have only experienced the distance learning course and the somewhat rushed, albeit very well taught, BGS brush-up course. In sitting through the brush-up I learned and clarified in my tiny brain many of the things that I simply couldn't comprehend without a guiding hand.

So, in some ways I was jealous of those who got to spend longer in a classroom learning the subjects. Even more so, studying the ATPL made me wish that I had time to spend learning the subjects, perhaps to degree-level. I think the broadness of the ATPL warrants greater study. The course as it stands is too fleeting.

And therein lies the problem and the solution. If the CAA insist we all pass the ATPL despite a great deal of the subject matter being irrelevant to day-to-day commercial piloting and where the breadth of the subject means without a few year's study you can't really hope to understand it all, perhaps the QB is the solution.

[spudgunjon]

On the brightside, lets suppose there are no 'pilot jobs' left upon completion of your ATPLs...

You could always go and be psychologists, ear nose and throat specialists, weathermen, load masters, jet engine mechanics or Christopher Columbus-esque explorers...

Who was it again that said any of it was irrelevant???

I'm really glad I'm learning how to fly supersonic aircraft now I'm too old to apply to the RAF and the last time I checked Concorde was out of service :rolleyes: - and I thought that the 'A' stood for Airline...:confused:

I have the Oxford, Jeppessen and Cabair ATPL manuals, and to read all 3 in each subject ([;us ground school) would be time consuming enough in 6 months let alone UNDERSTAND to a level where you consider yourself an expert - Add to this the fact that the CAA give you 6 sittings to pass 14 exams??? The problem stems from the top in my opinion - if you were permitted to take the exams sequentially you could really dig deep into the subject matter, however 6 months for 14 subjects allows around about 13 days per subject! Great for VFR comms. not so hot for Met or Gen Nav! A sound understanding of the basic principles of each subject plus the ability to jump through the ambiguously worded CAA hoops (also known as passing the exams) is undoubtedly what they are looking for.

[Alex Whittingham]

I agree with your comments about the exam system. Multi-choice exams are not the right examining tool, on their own, for professional knowledge at this level. I actually don't think the CAA or JAA are looking for anything more than exam passes, such is the shortsightedness of government bodies and quangos. Airlines look for a bit more, which is the difficulty. Airline pilots do tend to say 'of course, none of it is relevant' but on closer inspection they usually mean only some of it is relevant to their particular job. Other areas are often relevant in other, possibly less glamorous, jobs like bush flying, flying instruction and air charter. Supersonic flight isn't actually in the syllabus, only transonic aerodynamics is. Oddly, this is actually relevant to subsonic air transports, i.e. most modern jets.

[XL319]

I have to admit when I was in the RAF the level of Nav (for example) was by far superior than the civil way. It focused much more deeply and wide range of nav sims.

I do appreciate that people dont have that sort of money , but the CAA/Airlines should invest more in training.

IMO Military personnel are much more highly trained!!!

[nmcpilot]

All the teachers at most ground schools usually go insane when the dreaded word 'Bristol' is mentioned.

Except Douglas John Standen he can teach the whole met syllabus in 6hours. ;)

[XL319]

no they don't....most schools actually recommend Bristol (rightly or wrongly)

[Mikehotel152]

Absolutely XL319. BGS has an excellent reputation, especially within the industry, and any comments you might hear from FTOs are primarily due to jealousy. In any event, the fact that so many of the big FTOs unofficially recommend Bristol's QB is a notable endorsement.

[Whirlygig]

IMO Military personnel are much more highly trained!!!
Highly trained for what? The job that they do, that's all. Military personnel are not necessarily more highly trained for corporate flying and I can think of somethings (vortex ring for example) that are not taught in a military syllabus but are in the civilian one. Horses for courses!!

Cheers

Whirls

[Mikehotel152]

The military chaps on my ATPL course included an Apache pilot and Tornado pilot/instructor and both an ex-RN and an ex-RAF engineer. All bright guys and I'm sure they did very well in their exams, but they asked just as many dumb questions during class as the rest of us! :p