Pass ATPLs with only QB

[tangovictor89]

Hi,

I have fallen significantly behind in my studies. If I were to concentrate soley on the QB from now till my exams in March do I stand a chance of passing? Is it possible to scrape 75% from learning the QB?

I am aware that I should also know the material, but I plan to go back and keep reading the material after the exams. I just need to know if my time is better spent now learning the QB rather than the material.

[Da-20 monkey]

3 months is not a short time. Which subjects do you find more difficult?

[tangovictor89]

I waste all my time on General Nav but Flight Perf & Planning and Instruments aren't getting the attention they need and so falling behind there too.

[Da-20 monkey]

well, questions involving graphs, tables and calculations can be best done on the qb, imho.
The same way you learn math on school, practicing questions rather than learning theory only.
About gennav; lots of these calc questions can be solved both with a crp5 and with the electronic calculator.
Learn unit conversions and crp5 usage well, and decide which method is better for the question. This will save time on the exam.

Whatever you do, when you don't understand the answer to the question given, get an instructor to explain you or at least look it up in the book.
after all, you paid money for this :cool:

Subjects like air law can best be done with a lot of reference to the book imho.

instruments is probably quite straightforward; lots of mach number questions

perfo and fplanning contain questions with graphs that require a lot of prescision with your pencil.

[welliewanger]

Sorry, but the fact that you're even asking suggests the wrong attitude to me. Question banks have their place, as a tool to learn the syllabus and then apply that knowledge. I'm sure that your intentions are good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It appears to me that you have three options:

1. Study hard and do the exams on the date you've got scheduled. I took 4.5 months to do all mine. Assuming that you've done some study already, it should be possible.

2. Postpone the exams. It's hard to bite the bullet and say "I'm not ready." It's hard to say that about an exam, it's even harder to say "No." to a flight. One day you'll be sat on the ramp eager to go flying with all sorts of pressures saying that you have to "do it". But the weather is horrible, you've got a headache and there are a few minor technical issues with the plane. If you can't man up and say "I'm not prepared for that exam, I'll do it when I'm ready." Then you're never going to be able to say "I'm not prepared to do that flight, it's not safe."

3. Cheat. Just learn the questions, don't waste your time studying the theory. Hey, everyone does it! I promise I'll do the study after the exams.

[SFI145]

Whatever method suits you in order to pass the exams is the correct method for you. The vast majority of the ATPL TK exam is never used in the real world. If you asked a random sample of current professional pilots to sit the exams you would probably not get any volunteers. If you did they would almost all fail. You will not hear much discussion about departure and conversion angle on a modern flight deck.
On the other side of the Atlantic it is possible to study the question bank and pass the ATP in about 3 to 5 days without the need to enrol in an approved course.
Welliewanger's comments are totally inappropriate.

[paco]

1. Welliewanger's words are completely appropriate.

2. It is possible to pass exams on the other side of the Atlantic in the way that you suggest, but you certainly won't pass the check ride without in depth knowledge (if the system is working as it should.

3. "You will not hear much discussion about departure and conversion angle on a modern flight deck."

I still use it and I'm not the only one.

My advice - put the exams off until you are ready, especially when some airlines require first time passes.

[SFI145]

Dear Phil
Sorry to differ with your flight deck management philosophy.
Please give me an example of when you (and others you know) would use the words 'departure' in the GNAV sense and conversion angle on a modern flight deck. In 45 years of professional flying I have never heard it discussed once.
If you are using them you need to seriously review your need for CRM training.
Especially if the equipment you are using is short - medium range helicopters where both calculations would have no significance on navigation accuracy.
Such terms are not even included in the FAA syllabus.
I did my original CAA ATPL back in the days of Astro-Nav. Should we go back to those days because it is good for the soul?
Does it improve CRM and flight safety?
I know it is difficult to adapt to the modern world but at least we need to try.

[welliewanger]

I probably shouldn't be adding to a thread when drunk (Beijing rocks, by the way) but...

I agree that a large part of the ATPL theory is never used in real life, but I do think that it adds to the general background information. We could get into a debate about FAA V's EASA qualifications, but I fear that we'd be here all night. They are two different things one (generally) requires people to have thousands of hours experience before getting into something like a 737 or A320, the other one is geared to getting people into that at just 200 hours. Which is better? I don't know. But if you're going to do the exams and claim that you have that level of knowledge, then I consider it a fallacy, actually I consider it a downright lie - to say that you know the information (passed the exams) when actually you just learnt the answers.

The system may well be flawed, the exam questions ridiculous. But if you were asked in an interview whether you'd learnt the syllabus or just the questions, what would your answer be?

[The500man]

if you were asked in an interview whether you'd learnt the syllabus or just the questions, what would your answer be?

These days the answer would probably be do you want my money or not? The "bank of airline cadets" currently offers the fastest free money on the market.

[paco]

SFI145

The fact that you haven't heard the word departure discussed on your flight deck does not mean to say that it is not discussed elsewhere. Amongst other such obscure subjects, it's been a lively discussion in many crewrooms I have been in.

I have used those types of calculations for a major proportion of my professional flying career (over 35 years) - first of all during four years of aerial survey, then roaming all over Canada where there is no real use for a GPS (a good map reader will often outperform one). Working it out mentally saves a lot of time and trouble - if you know the cosine of your latitude (Edmonton is around 54 degs) and you have to move a certain distance E/W, you can give a quick ETA and do some rudimentary flight planning on the fly without taking your hands off the controls.

Departure is a word that refers to a distance in nautical miles in places other than the Equator, where it is referred to as ch long. More technically, it is the distance made good in an E-W direction along a rhumb line. It suits the above scenario perfectly.

I don't much care what the FAA syllabus demands - they are not the arbiters of what is and is not useful to a pilot. I have licences from several countries and they all have good ideas that could be adopted elsewhere.

And what has this discussion to do with CRM? We are talking about the technical nuts and bolts of the professional flying of an aircraft. CRM is good management of resources - as departure etc is one available to me, I will use it.

Speaking as a CRMI, and a person who is equally well qualified in the computer industry, over reliance on technology without learning the basics is asking for trouble, as taught in all the HF syllabuses I know (the JAA have many questions on the handling of automation). Unless you know the theory behind what these machines are doing, you will come unstuck one day if you don't keep an eye on them.

We don't need astral nav these days, but we certainly shouldn't be flying without the elementary tools of our trade.

[fwjc]

Note that if you are sitting old syllabus then the last chance to sit the exams is in March 2012. If you don't have the whole set by then, you may have to resit some that you have already passed. I'm not sure which ones are not credited under the new syllabus, but I understand that there are 4 or 5 in which the changes are deemed too great to credit the old for new.

That said, if you are on new syllabus, it's better to take and pass well the ones you are confident on, and defer the remainder. Just learning the answers is a bad idea and you will be found out.

[paco]

fwjc

There are 4 that won't transfer for fixed wing, and 6 for helicopter (their names escape me right now). You are correct in that you can resit those you have already taken. We are still recommending people use the old syllabus as much as possible, if they can squeeze their studies in the time available - at least they won't get the recent shenanigans with the performance exam.

[fwjc]

paco - thanks for the confirmation. I'm aware of the Perf one, if nothing else I understand that this one is much better sat under old syllabus.

I've checked with documentation out there, seems that for fixed wing,

Aircraft General
Instrumentation
Radio Navigation
Operational Procedures

cannot be carried forward old syllabus to new. There appears to be benefit in sitting Performance in the old syllabus and possibly also Gen Nav. That said, from what I understand, some of the updates for the new syllabus are for the positive.

[SFI145]

Poor Capt. Paco
You really don't get it do you?

I was the one that introduced the word departure into the discussion in the first place as an example of the nonsense in the JAA ATPL TK.

I hope you don't brief too many people on your incorrect knowledge of the true meaning of departure.

I quote your post here:-

'Departure is a word that refers to a distance in nautical miles in places other than the Equator, where it is referred to as ch long. More technically, it is the distance made good in an E-W direction along a rhumb line.'

Your definition is completely wrong.

You say departure is ch long.
It is not ch long it is ch long * cos (lat)
You say the definition is not valid at the equator
- well it is because cos (0) = 1

Good luck with your CRMI instruction.

[paco]

Oh dear. You're missing my point entirely - the example used is irrelevant - the point is that (CRM wise) if you don't check on the machinery you are not doing your job properly, and you can only do that if you know the basics, of which departure is but one aspect.

And I did not say departure is ch long. They are two different things. Of course, the JAA may not think so, but who cares about them. Let's see if we can make it clearer:

Change of longitude (d´long) is an angle measured in minutes at the Equator, and departure is a distance in nautical miles elsewhere. More technically, departure is the distance made good in an E-W direction along a rhumb line.

And why is it nonsense?

Learning about the inner workings of a CRT is nonsense.

[SFI145]

The reason it is nonsense is that you do not understand very basic mathematics.
I quote you again:-

'Change of longitude (d´long) is an angle measured in minutes at the Equator, and departure is a distance in nautical miles elsewhere. More technically, departure is the distance made good in an E-W direction along a rhumb line.'

More technically your definition is again totally incorrect.

This is a total misunderstanding of what 'departure' actually is.

Departure = Dlong * cos lat at ANY latitude.

At the poles cos 90 = 0 so departure = 0
At the equator cos 0 = 1 so departure = change in longitude
If you want nautical miles the formula becomes 60*dlong*cos lat

Why do you have such difficulty with such a simple school formula when you are are briefing others with your incorrect information?

[cefey]

You should be able to pass.
But it depends on the exams. Lately they DO change exams, adding new questions.
Lately we had performance exam. They change a lot on it (added tons of new stuff, added some incorrect graphs where you was supposed to extend lines (illegal).
Anyhow. Guys who did ONLY QB got around 45-50. Those who did only QB, but was smart and at least was paying attention in the class, got 55-65.
Those who studied got 65-73.
No one passed that exam (worldwide!) and we got free re-set. But my point is. If you study and they add many new questions - you have better chances to pass.
All exams I took, they had 10-20 new questions. I did whole QB (for some subj. around 80-90% of QB) once and my avg is 93 now. And best part - I have knowledge that one day MAY save my life. Nice to have.

[Groundloop]

I am aware that I should also know the material, but I plan to go back and keep reading the material after the exams. I just need to know if my time is better spent now learning the QB rather than the material.

Anyone who asks this question does not deserve to be a "professional" pilot as the questions shows a totally unprofessional approach.

[pegasus-9]

If you are going to rely on QB only, you may as well give up and save your money, the current QBs does not cover the latest syllabus in sufficent detail.

[paco]

SFI - it must be fun on your flight deck. I suggest you keep such comments to yourself. We are here to encourage people, not put them down.

Groundloop is perfectly correct. I have met many PPLs with a better professional attitude than many "professionals".

And you dare to pontificate about CRM?

[Da-20 monkey]

No one passed that exam (worldwide!) and we got free re-set.

Are you serious Cefey?:ooh: No- one passed?

What kind of questions did they ask then? Can you tell us more please?

[paco]

If you're talking abiout the performance exams, way too many graph questions and not enough time to do them in. Questions that are worth a couple of marks in Nav suddenly become elements of three-parters.

[Artie Fufkin]

It can take as little as 2 weeks to learn a full QB to sufficient level to pass. Not a wise move though. If you think you'll continue to read and learn the ATPL text books post exam, you are fooling no one but yourself.

Many do employ this tactic, you'd be surprised at the FOs who turn up on-line without some pretty basic knowledge.

A famous Old Boy once turned up at my school assembley and said, "half of everything you learn at school is completely useless and is pointless learning". All the teachers turned round looking aghast, until he said "but you don't know which half, so study it all". Very true.

[Da-20 monkey]

That's unbelievable. I did the exams a year ago, and all of them were similar to the qb.
Even then there were people without first time passes.
I suppose it is a problem for students now, since some big employers require first time passes. :ugh:

[welliewanger]

A famous Old Boy once turned up at my school assembley and said, "half of everything you learn at school is completely useless and is pointless learning". All the teachers turned round looking aghast, until he said "but you don't know which half, so study it all". Very true.

Genius... absolute genius!

[Groundloop]

As you are a PPL holder maybe you should keep out of these discussions and leave it to the professional pilots?
Remember this a PP forum (Professional Pilots) not amateurs like you.

I may only hold a PPL but I have been involved in the education and training of commercial pilots for the last 15 years and I have seen all types - those who really want to learn and those who just want to scrape through with the minimum effort.

[tangovictor89]

Thank you all for your useful replies.

Any others?

[Da-20 monkey]

Afro, I was talking about the recruitment policy of a big low cost carrier in Europe. This airline is at present the nearly only one that recruits low hour pilots from flight schools in large numbers.

However, they only invite people with first time passes on the theory and (I think) first time pass on the CPL/IR check (partial passes?)

If you don't have those, you can join the ,,finished flight school, no job'' club. Unless you find something else.

I myself am In a different position, couldn't continue integrated training after theory, because no loan from the bank.

[Da-20 monkey]

To be honest, Afro, I have no idea where people get the money for that type rating. I guess you could include it in a loan for an integrated course. This explains why some people leave school with a 100.000 euro debt with little job prospects.

That's not a typo.

So maybe I am better off after all.:rolleyes:

There is conflicting opinion about whether you have more chance of getting a job if you did integrated rather than modular. And even modular is difficult to fund if you have a simple part-time job. Those theory exams are only valid 3 years, after all.
And finding a general aviation job in this part of the world is a bit of a gamble too, I think.
But yes, it is an option.


Are you in europe?

[Da-20 monkey]

So can we say about this certain budget airline, whether integrated or modular Eur100k in pocket & first time exam passes (skills test, IR etc) your chances are greatly improved?

That's quite a statement :ooh: I don't know the answer.

Ask in this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/222538-ryanair-interview-sim-assessment-merged-140.html

Sorry for going way over topic.:rolleyes: