CAA Written Exams

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I am studying the British CAA exam questions (all of them).

They questions and exams are not relevant, especially today. It would be better for pilots and safety if they changed them:

1-They could make the material studied relevant to modern flying, so that you would learn more stuff that would make you a better pilot.

or

2-Just give a standard IQ test, if the purpose is just to weed people out. This would save a LOT of money and time.

cliff
NBO
PS-Some of the stuff I'm learning is interesting, but it's mostly useless information....I can see that some of it WAS usefull, about 100 years ago, in the "Golden Age" of aviation, but times have changed and the CAA testing has not.

[Air1980]

Please see my previous thread entitled "arrrgggghhhh" !

Completely understand the frustration - in the same boat here and still shaking my head (mostly at the Conversion angle/mercator chart vs Lambert vs Oblique stereotypical transverse oblong shoe-horned parallax chart nonsense) Who gives a rat's you-know-what? If you're in that big of a pickle you sure aren't going to remember the handy 2 page long description of how to figure out the problem.......However, rest assured that there is a tweedy, tea-breathed, failed pilot in some damp dreary corner of the CAA who just loves his job dreaming up these problems. And be happy that the flush button can be almost fully depressed after said exams are complete.

Now, back to that Grivation.........

[paco]

Several CGIs spent most of last year with the CAA making the British database as relevant as it can be within the constraints of the JAA system.

Just think yourself lucky you're not in Holland - there's been a wrong answer (that is, their correct answer is wrong) in their helicopter POF database for 10 years!

There will be times when you'll wish you'd studied just that bit harder, because it will (mostly) be relevant sometime.

Phil

[Air1980]

I don't know about that, respectfully, Paco. Been flying for some time now, and certainly never needed to know when the ICAO counsel can be convened, what my rhumb line in the Southern Hemisphere to an NDB is, what the PRF is, how an MLS works etc etc. They lack fundamental"how would you fly in XXX situation" which arguably is the key to being a succesful - and long lived ATPL holder.

However, the Met section is excellent, and something the FAA should emulate.

[youngskywalker]

I feel the ideal system would fall somewhere between the JAA and the FAA and taking the best of each. Sadly, I fear it will never happen in my lifetime!

[paco]

Even the lowliest reservations person knows what the five freedoms are - and I have used ch long all over N Alberta, and HF radio (dead space and all that). I still maintain that if you are a true professional, you should be finding out as much as possible about your profession. A well-briefed lawyer, for example, will go into court with every possibility catered for, even if it is never used. So it should be with us.

If people are taking short cuts now, what short cuts will they be taking when they are flying? The ability to do the Aircraft General Knowledge exam within ten minutes based on whatever database I regard as a serious CRM problem.

I personally rather favour the Australian or Canadian systems. The Australian for their exam content, and the Canadian for the consistent checkrides.

Phil

[Air1980]

Sure, HF radio is useful,as is having an awareness of the freedoms of the air (although I hope someone in Ops has figured out the ins and outs prior to my wheels touching down...) However, I still contend that the vast majority of the studying is nit-picking, and involves calculations that require numbers and formulas you do not have access to in real life. As such, the point is lost on me, how about real scenarios (figuring out which SID you can accept out of Incheon on a hot day; go/no-go decisions?) and not calculating the radius of your turn - in a heavy jet!!!!!!!!!

[fisbangwollop]

Hey come on guys we are talking CAA here......:ugh::ugh::ugh: You think this is bad try registering a new type aircraft onto the British register as a mate of mine did a few years back when the C550 first came into the country.....I can still hear his curses of frustartion many years on!!!:):):)

[paco]

And the autopilot on a helicopter that had been fitted at the factory, had a different suffix (one letter!) than the aftermarket version, even though it was the same item, and couldn't be used. Grrrr!!

But this is nothing to do with exams....

Rest assured that the person who is currently in charge of the questions (in the CAA) has your interests at heart, but is limited in what he can do.

Phil

[Matt101]

They had 750 hours of ground training to fill? what do you expect.:p

In all seriousness, as someone is going through the JAA syllabus at the moment, there are times when I think "will someone ever really want me to know the gumph that comes with a Lamberts Conformal - work out the PO from n?" (though that's an easy one!) Probably not - and does it make me a better Pilot from day to day?(well I'm still quite new so it is difficult to judge but probably not).

Do I, however, feel that having every possible base covered, or attempting to learn as much about the profession I am about to (hopefully) enter is a bad thing - absolutely not - and it impresses the Family to!

Whether it is all absolutely necessary is probably debatable but I do think knowing as much about the aircraft, the environment it operates in, the people who work on it and despatch it, and the jobs of the people who come up with all those Charts and Plates etc. is a good thing - and the JAA ATPL theory goes some way to giving you a base in that - the rest comes with practice (I guess).

Moreover I do enjoy it (masochist maybe), and it is unlikely to change so I just deal with it. It isn't particularly hard anyway - just crap loads of it! :ok:

[chrisbl]

Just get over it and do them.

[FlyBoyFryer]

Moreover I do enjoy it (masochist maybe), and it is unlikely to change so I just deal with it. It isn't particularly hard anyway - just crap loads of it!


Have to agree - it's a matter of personal preference for sure. I, for one, am more than happy to keep revising until things pick up at which point I might not have the time. As always, trying to be constructive with time available...

Bristol GS's notes were brilliant - maybe that has a large part to play in things? I obviously wouldn't have the same enthusiasm for poorly crafted study material.

[filmarik]

hi folks,
plase could anybody help me with those to Q?

The operator of an aircraft equipped with 50 seats uses standard masses for passengers and baggage. During the preparation of a scheduled flight a group of passengers present themselves at the check-in desk, it is apparent that even the lightest of these exceeds the value of the declared standard mass.

A the operator may use the standard masses for the balance but must correct these for the load calculation

B the operator may use the standard masses for the load and balance calculation without correction

C the operator should use the individual masses of the passengers or alter the standard masss

D the operator is obliged to use the actual masses of each passenger


AND

The maximum zero-fuel mass:
1- is a regulatory limitation
2- is calculated for a maximum load factor of +3.5 g
3- is due to the maximum permissible bending moment
at the wing root
4- imposes fuel dumping from the outer wings tank first
5- imposes fuel dumping from the inner wings tank first
6- can be increased by stiffening the wing
The combination of correct statements is:
A
1, 2, 3
B
1, 3, 5
C
2, 5, 6
D 4, 2, 6


Thanks a lothttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif