PDA

View Full Version : Something to answer for AFT??


Lickher Licence
19th Nov 2012, 09:41
Heard some second hand news (the best kind of news), that of 40 odd AFT students sitting Flight planning recently, only one passed?
How is this an acceptable pass rate for NH? Now we all know that it's a tricky one to pass and rumours are that the questions have changed slightly, but is AFT losing its touch?
Now that the questions have changed it seems AFT are behind the 8 ball with "teaching the exam questions"
A lot of coin to hand out for no result.

Horatio Leafblower
19th Nov 2012, 12:03
Gee I wonder if the new examiner (who used to be an ATPL theory provider but could never cut into NH's dominance of the market) has decided it is God's Work to cut a swathe through NH's averages? :suspect:

romeocharlie
19th Nov 2012, 12:51
One might say whoever is writing the exams might have something to answer for being that the 1000's of students that NH has taught over the years are the ones ACTUALLY booting around in shiny metal. 727?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Corkey McFuz
19th Nov 2012, 18:59
I reckon the something must be up with the exam, its only just come online after being re-jigged.

There were some very bright and switched on people on the course who were acing the practice exams and should have got high 90s+ but instead resulted in the sub 50s, which is where most people ended up.

Everybody put in huge effort and most did quite well in the practice exams. The real exam was not difficult, very similar if not slightly easier than the practice ones.

A lot of people have been very successful under N.H, nothing has changed there but for these results (spectacular fails rather than "just missing out") something has changed somewhere.

If it's casa, I wonder if and what they would do about it...

Lickher Licence
19th Nov 2012, 20:28
Not lashing out, that exam was done and dusted a few years back..
It's a bit harsh to say that the class are a bunch of duds.
Sounds like Corkey might by correct.
Interesting to see how it pans out over the next few months when CASA see that no one is passing.

seneca208
19th Nov 2012, 20:46
Word is 3 passes out of 45 sittings yesterday.

Capt Fathom
19th Nov 2012, 20:56
Is this a result of 'teaching the exam' rather than 'teaching the subject'?

das Uber Soldat
19th Nov 2012, 21:06
I disagree that he simply 'teaches you the exam'. I walked out of flight planning with a thorough knowledge of the syllabus. That he teaches exam technique in addition doesn't negate the fact that you still cover the syllabus in its entirety. At least, that's how it was back in the early 2000s.

mcgrath50
19th Nov 2012, 21:07
If the questions are similar what has changed?

I can only imagine it's either the level of accuracy required or they've changed what assumptions you can make for your rules of thumb that AFT uses quite a lot.

SpyderPig
19th Nov 2012, 21:11
Word is 3 passes out of 45 sittings yesterday.
Heard this also. No real word from friends on the course just yet about the actual exam, a lot of them seem to be shocked after doing so well in practice exams and coming up well short on the day.

mates rates
19th Nov 2012, 21:27
I is supposed to be a test of KNOWLEDGE not of the exam questions.We need more of these sort of failure rates to lift the standards.Then,just maybe,we will have less pilots running out of fuel due poor flight planning!

PPRuNeUser0163
19th Nov 2012, 21:51
42 exam fails- asl will be dining with the queen at this rate!

But in all seriousness everyone knows the ambiguity of Casa exams and that weeks of study can amount to a fail because of a stupidly worded question so what's new?

blackhand
19th Nov 2012, 21:59
Then,just maybe,we will have less pilots running out of fuel due poor flight planning! How dare you say that, it is not the pilot's fault, it is CASA and ATSB and the Operators fault.

das Uber Soldat
19th Nov 2012, 22:03
I is supposed to be a test of KNOWLEDGE not of the exam questions.We need more of these sort of failure rates to lift the standards.Then,just maybe,we will have less pilots running out of fuel due poor flight planning!
Tell me this clown isn't serious.

The current ATPLs have about as much to do with modern transport aviation as cross stitch. Its the syllabus that needs to be changed (a 727, really?), not the way the exams are taught. As I stated before, the syllabus was covered in its entirety when I undertook the course.

How would you teach it better genius?

The Green Goblin
19th Nov 2012, 22:11
I don't know what everyone's problem with the 727 is.

You would be doing the same techniques if it were a 737 or an A320. The only difference would be the high bypass engines would have lower fuel burns, the principles are still identical.

In fact because of this, the variations in the fuel burn would be far less with different configs (gear down, de-pressurised etc). As a direct result of this, the accuracy required for the exam would be far less, and thus easier to pass.

I think the 727 is the perfect ship for such an exam. I really enjoyed the flight planning syllabus and used many of the techniques in my day to day flying when I was a turboprop skipper.

I also use SGRs for the Airbus enroute for contingency planning to verify the FMS generated data.

The Green Goblin
19th Nov 2012, 22:17
The current ATPLs have about as much to do with modern transport aviation as cross stitch

So what do you propose?

Opening the flight plan envelope or learning how to print the flight plan?

How to enjoy a perfect flat white, whilst bumping up flight plan fuel figures?

101 excuses to carry extra fuel?

How to handle a Captain who likes minimum fuel?

ETOPS?

I'd love to hear it :ok:

ChaseIt
19th Nov 2012, 23:06
Sad news that so many students have to resit the exam as ASL and CASA look forward to making even more money out of already poor pilots...

The current flight planning exam and some small parts of the other exams are out of touch with reality.

I'd love to hear about any pilots that have calculated a 1 engine inop DP at the ETP when flying between Perth and Melbourne... Even if i did feel the need to slog out the calculations :8 would a 50-100kg error in fuel burn calculation really be that critical...

Its an out dated exam made by old crusty men refusing to change it, just cause they had to sit it back in the day! Get with the times!

The Green Goblin
19th Nov 2012, 23:32
I'd love to hear about any pilots that have calculated a 1 engine inop DP at the ETP when flying between Perth and Melbourne... Even if i did feel the need to slog out the calculations would a 50-100kg error in fuel burn calculation really be that critical...

The flight plan has the excess fuel at diversion airports and fuel required from ETP included on the flight plan. You still double check those figures with basic arithmetic to check the integrity of the dispatchers assumptions. They do get it wrong from time to time. Or miss things.

What the flight plan doesn't have included are PNRs. I still do these especially on international flights over areas not friendly to the west.

sgenie
19th Nov 2012, 23:48
Was this exam an online one through ASLTasman?

flighterpilot
20th Nov 2012, 00:44
I'd be curious to see the difference is pass rates before and after the exam (nation wide) was suspended back in September due to 'technical difficulties' with that exam...

neville_nobody
20th Nov 2012, 00:48
The reality is that if they made the exam based on a 767 or 777 then the thing would become straight forward as the manuals and systems are better engineered and simpler.

morno
20th Nov 2012, 02:00
I'd just like to chirp in here in Nathans defence.

I sat his 6 week course mid this year. The rumour that he simply teaches the exam, is incorrect. I came out of his course with a very good understanding of the concepts behind flight planning and could still recall pretty well all of it now months later.

And as much as I ranted and raved at the time that the 727 is outdated, as Green Goblin said, the methods are the same, regardless of the aircraft type you use.

I did enjoy flight planning, and managed to walk out of the exam first go, with 94%.

What DOES need some changing, is the quality of the graphs/tables etc. that you use for Performance! They are near on impossible to be accurate with.

morno

Wanderin_dave
20th Nov 2012, 02:05
The whole thing would be fairer for everyone if CASA provided some information on how they came up with the answers to their questions. Not saying they should give you the answers to all the questions just an example with working, then you could see which numbers to round up/down, how many decimal places to carry, even what kind of margin on your CR2 you can have. Plenty of questions have been failed simply due to the thickness of a pencil or the rounding of a number. They do - Starts at page 28: http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/download/v2_2aeroplane.pdf

I went to a theory provider with a good reputation (LT), did the work and had a good look at all the supporting material CASA provide. I made sure I had covered all items in the syllabus. I got through first time.

These exams aren't meant to be easy (nor should they be), but by no means are they impossible. By doing a bit of extra research and speaking to people in the know you can really put yourself ahead of the curve.

What DOES need some changing, is the quality of the graphs/tables etc. that you use for Performance! They are near on impossible to be accurate with.

AMEN!!

JetA181
20th Nov 2012, 03:31
To be honest their is nothing wrong with Higgins course, but learning everything in Flight Planning in less than two weeks is a huge effort on both sides.

His course is tailored to people who are working and that would like to get through quickly and efficiently. I enjoyed the course last year in MCY but by the end of the 2nd week I was so burnt out I barely had the energy left going into the exam.

I honestly think people would have a better success rate if they gave themself an extra week or two to revise everything in the course before attempting the exam. When I sat flight planning last year out of 47 students there were 16 that passed.

flighterpilot
20th Nov 2012, 05:59
I'm certain no one is suggesting the exam is unnecessarily difficult. The thread began because of an apparent down turn in the pass rate.

To suggest a dud course at a particular training establishment would be a statistical anomaly. A fairly random pool of 40 odd 6 months ago should have a similar pass rate to more recent attempts (plus or minus blah blah...). I'm sure if a school had a consistent pass rate of 1:15-ish (as suggested in previous posts), it would not survive long.

If there has been a sudden change it would suggest something other than a dud course of students. And would need looking into. Especially if the exam had been recently "re-jigged".

The Green Goblin
20th Nov 2012, 06:14
I spent about 6 weeks doing flight planning, and I self studied with AFTs notes.

The trick to the exam is understanding the concept and what you are trying to achieve.

It helps to be practical about it too.

The biggest tip I can give folk is if you get a result that is between two answers, always pick the lowest fuel burn figure as an answer.

The more sectors you break your plan into, the more fuel burns you can calculate and the lower the burn in each sector as the aircraft gets lighter.

If you understand this, you will pass flight planning first go with at least an 80% pass mark.

Bladeangle
20th Nov 2012, 08:48
Sounds like a few too many nights at the Scu-Bar!

But seriously, what Nathan doesn't know about planning is not worth knowing. I did his planning course earlier this year he covered absolutely everything in the exam syllabus, with a few very helpful "rules of thumb".

His course is second to none.

Id be more suspicious on Casa actually organising their exam answers in order with the questions!

P.S Last I heard, old god bothering Gav was working for CLARC, not writing exams...

farmer dan
20th Nov 2012, 09:20
I suggest to anyone that feels hard done by in the exam to contact and make a complaint to CLARC (CASA licensing) via email and phone. From first hand experience, I can confirm the stats ( 3 people passing out of 45 people). There were some super smart people in the class, including Julia Gillards pilot, as well as many other FO's etc. Most people found the exam pretty easy and straight forward but most scored under 50%, and a fair few under 40%. The exam had many errors, including asking for 'total fuel burnt from A to B' and giving answers in kg/ph. It was a joke. If they can't get it together to write a exam, what chance do they have of looking after our safety. Rant over.
Farmer Dan

josephfeatherweight
20th Nov 2012, 09:48
To dispel a myth - Nathan does not teach the exam - it is abundantly clear in his course that he understands his obligation to teach the theory. Given that, nobody can deny that 18/19 flightplanning questions in 3 hours with a required accuracy of around 1% is not easy - Nathan teaches valid and proven methods to arrive at that accuracy. He is an excellent teacher and he is committed to teaching the subject, not just how to pass the exam.

Ok, I did the exam yesterday also - unlike most of the other ATPL subjects I've done in the last few years, when I hit the submit button I genuinely thought that I was possibly in line for 100%. I knew the questions and I even had 10 mins to spare to re-check the 1 and 2 markers for stupid errors. I got 50%. Something is going on here.

I agree with Farmer Dan - we need to apply some pressure here. I'm not sure what the rules are with requesting a re-mark - given the circumstances I'm beside myself that my workings have been shredded and there's no evidence of what I did.

das Uber Soldat
20th Nov 2012, 10:01
The current ATPLs have about as much to do with modern transport aviation as cross stitch So what do you propose?

Opening the flight plan envelope or learning how to print the flight plan?

How to enjoy a perfect flat white, whilst bumping up flight plan fuel figures?

101 excuses to carry extra fuel?

How to handle a Captain who likes minimum fuel?

ETOPS?

I'd love to hear it http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifWell, I'd probably change it to introduce a literacy component to ensure pilots could read. I said the ATPLs, not just specifically flight planning.

You done many geometric solutions to a PNR or ETP lately?
Done a lot of work with polar stenographic charts this year?
And the INS gyro stuff. I'm sure you're so busy dealing with those every day you don't even have time to answer on those questions.

There are bit and pieces that are certainly useful but to answer your question, I 'propose' they modernize the exams and aim to test more practical theoretical areas that may have some practical benefit to a shiny new ATPL candidate.

Regarding the 727, yes the techniques are more or less the same but at least make it on an aircraft that actually operates in this country.

mr.tos
20th Nov 2012, 11:25
I 'propose' they modernize the exams and aim to test more practical theoretical areas that may have some practical benefit to a shiny new ATPL candidate.

Would be nice academia is very different to the real world. The deeper you go into any subject area, the more theoretical and less practical it gets.

Centaurus
20th Nov 2012, 13:02
Its an out dated exam made by old crusty men refusing to change it, just cause they had to sit it back in the day! Get with the times!








Funny you should say that. Now first of all I know zilch about modern day ATPL exams. But I had similar problems 45 years ago while trying to pass the SCPL (later called ATPL) subjects while in the RAAF. Couldn't get an airline job so joined Dept of Civil Aviation (DCA)Head Office in Melbourne where my office was next to the Examiner of Airmen (Theory).

He was a bitter and twisted cranky old grey haired public servant who used to be a navigator on Wellington bombers dropping bombs on the Jerries. Probably what gave him the grey hair! As a former navigator he was just what DCA wanted to set up the flight planning and navigation exams. These were full of (would you believe) Antarctic grid navigation exams and gyro steering questions at high latitudes.

I dropped in to say hello and said his exams were completely irrelevent to the average airline pilot flying a DC3 between Tassie and the mainland. He spat the dummy and said his exams were based on Qantas International requirements where in those days their pilots had to have a Navigation Licence. And if pilots couldn't pass his exams then that was their problem. I pointed out that even the navigators on my squadron who had helped me were unable to get his answers right so what hope could mere pilots have?

I'm buggered if I could see the relevance of his argument but at least I got it out of my system. You had to know all about Meridional Parts and Log tables, too. Seems things haven't changed much in Fifty years...

Joker89
20th Nov 2012, 19:02
I think the issue here is not about the relevance of the exam but the fact it appears casa have changed something recently that has resulted in an abnormal fail rate. If this is the case they need to explain what has changed so providers of the training can adapt the training to suit.

Self study is not for everyone. If you fork out the coin and the time to go into full time ground school then you should expect a reasonable chance of passing, as has previously been experienced by AFT students.

flighterpilot
20th Nov 2012, 21:00
Does anyone know whether an AFT representative has approached CASA at all or if they intend to?

hiwaytohell
20th Nov 2012, 21:52
I think the issue here is not about the relevance of the exam but the fact it appears casa have changed something recently that has resulted in an abnormal fail rate. If this is the case they need to explain what has changed so providers of the training can adapt the training to suit.

Does anyone actually know if the increased failure rate is just AFT or is it across all people sitting the exams???

If the increase applies to everyone it would remove the aspersions re AFT, and suggest either some dud exams or the changes to the exam criteria have not gotten through to the candidates.

das Uber Soldat
20th Nov 2012, 23:28
Would be nice academia is very different to the real world. The deeper you go into any subject area, the more theoretical and less practical it gets.
I think you're stretching the limits of credibility associating casa with 'academia'.

You can go into detail on a subject area and still keep it relevant. I can provide countless examples of the ATPL syllabus covering crap that isn't even remotely relevant. To anyone.

climb11thousand
22nd Nov 2012, 01:47
The current count of people (that we know of, surely more) who have sat the flight planning exam in the last couple of weeks is around 75. Of those, a grand total of 4 have passed, and only just. These were not all AFT students so it has nothign to do with them and what they are teaching.

Stats from the casa website is a pass rate of 59.3% (lowest of all the ATPL) with 32.7% of all those getting 80+ and 17.5% getting less that 55. Out off all the people who have recently sat, most have got below 50.

Something is seriously wrong. CASA have apparently gone back through a whole lot of workings and said we are all wrong.

What do you do now ? Especially if casa wont budge :ugh:

milehighsociety
22nd Nov 2012, 02:08
I sat NH's course earlier this year.

Whilst he used practice questions extensively, he still taught the course thoroughly and I have absolutely no doubts about recommending his course to any pilot.

After having completed my ATPL I can say there was not exam where ASL did not have some sort of problem with the computers, the server, CASA's server etc etc. Literally not one exam. I sat some in Queensland and some in Bankstown. Both locations experienced similar problems.

I contacted the relevant head of CASA licencing and examinations. He didnt really seem to care much, and made blind excuses for everything. He did say that changes were due as this year progressed however.

Im no pointing the finger as I simply dont know. My best guess however, is that they made an ass of the changes and didnt test it. Id be surprised if they ever admitted it. Typical CASA disorganisation, lack of professionalism and blatant disregard for the pilots they serve.

Im sure nothing will be done to change this of course....

Moral of the story - AFT was a great course in my opinion. Have a look where most issues lie in aviation...

hiwaytohell
22nd Nov 2012, 02:10
Something is seriously wrong.

Definitely with 5.3% pass rate there is something seriously wrong with the exam or curriculum.

drpixie
22nd Nov 2012, 05:25
Ok - I'll add to the stats.

I sat the exam today. Had previously self studied - been unclear about reserves required for various situations and just failed (69% :* ). Was pissed as I'm normally pretty good at this type of stuff.

So I bought Rob Avery's notes and practice exams. I'm confident that I now understand the subject well, and can do accurate plans in reasonable time. Today I got 38% - really pissed now.

I have seen both the old exam and the new one. The new one is just LOTS of detailed plans (full or partial) with VERY close answers. Mostly covering fuel burn - I saw nothing on PNR, and only one or two simple CPs. One or two other small questions (max alt, fuel burn...). So it's LOTS and LOTS of detailed plans.

I don't believe the exam answers are correct. Of course I will have made mistakes, but there were plenty of high score questions where I am very confident I calculated the question sensibly, but obviously didn't get the points.

:ugh:

So - no point throwing more good money after bad, if the 6% pass rate is true. What Can we do?

:ugh:

Is this CASA, in panic mode over the Senate enquiries and the Pelair stuff, making sure Dominic What'sHisName doesn't pass FPL?

Or protecting there ass because someone up north was passing around answers?

Either way it's really fckg ridiculous.

gaunty
22nd Nov 2012, 06:47
drpixie

Loved your post.

Have you tried working the answers to 6 decimal places for each and every calculation with rounding on your calculator turned OFF to get the VERY close answers to fall easily into the right box?

My failing memory suggests that was a routine required? by the regulator in the past. :{

If you can survive that process then you might have the qualities required to be a good captain one day.

With at least one of their answers to the long question being clearly incorrect.
Noel, God bless him had to work it through for them on a whiteboard, to be told, and this is just hearsay you know, we are now going to have to arrest you for having unauthourised knowledge of the question. Penalty 1,000,000 points or 20 years working for the regulator.:ok: :rolleyes:
Question to them, what about those who have accidently passed and those who have apprently failed but actually passed, corrective action will be taken? Err no. :ouch:

The Green Goblin
Seems to have it nailed and his comments regarding many iterations over shorter legs makes a lot of sense, (see my 6 decimal above would have a similar effect?) if you have the time and numeracy acuity.

In real life good operators, come back to quick and relatively dirty macro/rule of thumb answers to check the computerised calcs as they go.
The stats are full of flights that went bad because the crew were blindly following the bouncing ball instead of maintaining full SA as a double check in their heads.

It might appear to be an intelectual exercise but has actual the effect of filtering out those unsuitable even though some but not many get through the airlines net. The real lessons start when you get on the type they have assigned you and even then you may wash out for any number of reasons unrelated to flight planning

Doesn't sound like a lot has changed at the regulator and you may be right about the current situation, we have been there before.

Having said that don't give up, let things settle down, talk to your tutor, he'll have an idea of whats happening and good luck with the next one, as they say, it's the best view in the world.

farmer dan
22nd Nov 2012, 22:39
I know I might be stating the obvious but I think it needs to be spelt out for some people:hmm:. Try emailing and calling the following:

-CLARC

-CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner - Online complaint form.

- AFAP (if you are a member)

Farmer Dan.

Arch Angelos
23rd Nov 2012, 00:25
I am going to have to strongly disagree with the original poster here.

Nathan's notes and his course are fantastic, I self studied all 7 of the ATPLs and passed all first time except flight planning.
I failed the first time by 1 mark, then passed the second albeit only just.

The questions and course material havent changed, and no one should have any doubt that the material you are learning is incorrect. As for all this 727 discussion well that's another topic...

For anyone reading this post my tips to passing this exam are simple;
1. Be prepared for exteremly difficult 1 and 2 markers where you will have to do the equivalent of 3-4 marks work. CASA will make you work extremely hard for 2 marks by for e.g. giving you a weight in the middle of a climb sector and then asking you to find GW once cruising, so you'll be using intermedaite climb calculations etc. all for just 2 marks)

2. DO NOT use any super sectors. The exam has been re-jigged and the answers are extremely tightly spaced. There is no margin to average any weather whatsoever unless we are talking 1 degree of temperature (with answers 50 kg apart even 30-40 kg over a 5 hour flight you are going to have to do it the hard way) (this was my undoing on my first attempt)

3. Read the syallabus as to exaclty how CASA round their numbers. Having studied an engineering degree actually put me in worse sted for the exam, if you do not round your numbers to the nearest 3 degrees or 5 degrees for example you are going to get the question wrong. Additionally for sector ETIs use at least 2 decimal places 30 seconds of fuel at 4500 kg/hr is 38 kg!!

4. Write the distances on ERC high charts for all the common routes and highlight the common routes.

5. Work extremely fast, a basic plan should take you 10-12 minutes tops
You have 50 marks and 180 minutes. That's 3 minutes 36 seconds per mark. Do the math.

Good luck to all sitting the exam.

AA out.

Arch Angelos
23rd Nov 2012, 01:00
You have got to be kidding me right?


I wish the guy who's wallet is now 170 dollars lighter due to a resit could tell you, but I can't, so I am not going to.

Apparently, due to the unexplainably high pass rate and "technical difficulties" it would seem this is the only way to make the exam more difficult.

josephfeatherweight
23rd Nov 2012, 01:37
The exam has been re-jigged and the answers are extremely tightly spaced.

Well, that's just not fair and ridiculous - particularly if this is a "change" from previous exams. You can't bring the goal posts closer together without industry involvement (eg training organisations). No matter what they say, if the current pass mark is as low as it appears, the exam is broke.

Surely the point of the exam is to assess the ability of an individual to demonstrate the application of the theory. The ridiculous rounding rules and abnormal fuel penalties (e.g. gear down climb) that are employed by CASA in this exam, guarantee that the answer (no matter how "accurate") is not realistic anyway. MANY people (not just AFT students) have been taught a particular method and "re-jigging" the exam is just not fair.

I'm disappointed that this has evidently come about as a result of cheating - so often the minority ruin it for the majority.

I believe writing to CLARC will not achieve a satisfactory outcome - it will just be forwarded to the person responsible, who, I am led to believe, strenuously denies anything is wrong/broken with the exam.

Farmer Dan's suggestion re the "CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner - Online complaint form" - is a good one - I'm finding myself agreeing with Farmer Dan every day! Please, for maximum effect, could those affected pursue this further!

I am extremely reticent to book my next exam until something has happened, though I'm not holding my breath...

john_tullamarine
23rd Nov 2012, 01:54
Noel, God bless him had to work it through for them on a whiteboard

I presume you refer to Noel L, Gaunty ? Back in the olden days, Noel and I spent a couple of sessions in with CASA's alter ego of the day (probably still was DCA, then) and we (and several other Industry folks) were tasked with going through the exam bank to comment. Nothing wrong with questions at that stage, I suggest.

The main problem with exams has always been twofold .. on the one hand, the examiner needs to test a reasonable fraction of the syllabus and that is a hard ask with a time limited single examination. In addition, there needs to be a reasonable looksee at the student's ability to do sensible quasi-real world calculations.

My view has always been that a combination of multi-guess to look at the former combined with longhand calcs for the latter is a reasonable scenario. With the multi-guess one can put in distractors and close alternatives to sort the wheat from the chaff and provide a level of grading. The longhand exercises, though, need to concentrate on technique and logic rather than the actual answer .. providing that the student recognises if he/she has gone off on an inappropriate tangent and so identifies in the manuscript.

For exam results suddenly to skew dramatically raises concerns in several areas -

(a) it is a reasonable presumption that student ability and performance, on average, will be predictable.

(b) a significant exam result skewing suggests one of

(i) (a) didn't operate on the occasion for some reason
(ii) the particular exam(s) involved a significant step change in technical difficulty, whether up or down
(iii) the particular exam(s) involved a significant step change in the level of dissimulation, whether up or down

Do the exams need to be "practical". I suggest not, although they do need to be sensible. Requiring discrimination of answers to quite inappropriate accuracies probably is not quite necessary. As in all areas of mensuration, accuracy ought to be pitched at the reasonable requirements of what is being assessed.

Gaunty also makes the point that a commercial piloting career ought not to be the result of good attendance.

Some folks ..

(a) are particularly suited and sail through exams, endorsements and training programs without any undue difficult .. and then fly with a level of skill which makes the rest of us green with envy

(b) are reasonably suited and talented and, with a bit of work and effort, make the grade

(c) are a little behind the eight-ball to start with and, by virtue of extreme application and diligence, make the grade. I can recall (with great fondness) a couple of such folk whom I trained through their theory work and they persevered and made a good grade. One ended up a well regarded C&T chap for a respected carrier

(d) some, unfortunately, really need to look elsewhere for work

The exams, endorsement programs, line training, upgrade training programs and so forth are all part of the process which facilitates putting folks into one of the paddocks.

Does the system always get it right ? Of course not but, then, no system gets to be perfect.

The student needs to know the work and, also, have a familiarity with the style of questions and answers which the examiner is looking for.

Well do I recall my first looksee at ATPL/SCPL Flight Planning. I read the syllabus .. pretty straightforward ... swotted Worthington (a recommended standard text for the subject) ... pretty interesting and straightforward .. and then sat the exam .. pretty shattering.

Next time around I had had a look at some typical exam questions and solutions and the result was a tad different ...

A bit of a thick skin helps one to get through this aviation minefield, I suggest.

Rogan82
23rd Nov 2012, 02:11
I have flown all over the world in a 135000LB grey beast, on the bones of my arse in fuel with little friendly divert options, without sitting an ATPL flight planning subject and not once run out of fuel. Only using the techniques from the good old Lockheed based flight manual and basic SGR's. Why does the exam have to be so hard and if dudes are still screwing up their planning in big aircraft, what went wrong with their type conversions?... On the subject of gross error checking the computer for fuel planning (I do it my self), how many times has it been wrong?

kalavo
23rd Nov 2012, 05:47
Your 135,000lb grey beast is operated in a completely different environment to the environment we operate in. Not saying someone who has done well in your environment wouldn't do well in ours, or vice versa. But the training to get to the same end stage is very different, the supervision along the way is very different and the outcome from failing a flight is very different.

No doubt along the path to flying a 135,000lb grey beast you've gone some extremely stressful points in your life to prove you deserve to be there. In our environment this is one of them.

Because of the inconsistency in our training, the regulator occasionally steps in. With pay for your own endorsements, training budgets have been slashed, there often isn't time to repeat a flight. With pressure from management to get a certain number of pilots on line, some candidates are passed when they possibly shouldn't be.

At this point the regulator has two options... they could put their foot down with the airline(s) and say their type conversion was inadequate. But this is a big political game and one they don't want to get involved in. Or they could simply make the standard to get to the interview stage just that little bit harder and tweak an exam that they do have control over. The only people who are going to complain aren't in a situation to do a lot about it. Guess what they decided to do?

This happens every few years, they watch the outcome and silently tweak in the direction required. Some times things get harder, sometimes an extra half hour is allowed in the exam, some times a few questions disappear.



Would this be better done at the airline level with a company that has the resources to retrain as required if someone doesn't meet the standard and the material can be made relevant to the type in question? Absolutely. But the industry is moving as far away from that as possible in an attempt to cut costs, and hence the ATPL is being used and expected to check knowledge to the level required for the first type rating, albeit on a semi-imaginary aircraft (B727 Flight Planning, combination of 767 and 737 systems, etc.). If someone isn't meeting the grade, they simply have to pay to retrain until they do. Then when they come to do the second type rating (the first real one!) there can be an assumed level of knowledge and the airlines can pay the bare minimum in training costs.

Rogan82
23rd Nov 2012, 07:26
I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Having experienced the civilian world as a CPL holder before I joined, I have small insight into that world.

It is a very unfortunate that the organisations in the best positions to provide the training aren't due to money. So the industry has to rely on a 6% pass rate in an exam to weed out its lower performers. That does not exactly stop people from overseas with qualifications attained in a system with a much higher pass rate, being targeted by these organisations ( or talked about being targeted). Are you getting a better product there or not?

My argument is that they should be teaching relevance. Instead of wasting people's time and money on exams that require you to use calculations to six decimal places, on an aircraft built on slide rules, with charts designed before calculators. That should be invested in teaching the relevant skills to today's modern machinery. Im not saying don't teach or examine this stuff, just maybe it can be refocused.

As for growing pilots, the guts of the training on fuel planning I had before my first conversion was that the SGR of the PC9 was around 2lb/nm. The conversion was taught as type specific straight from the flight manual. Very easy to learn, you can do it without a calculator... As for the environment. We still share the same airways, fly the same SIDS, and burn Jet A1.

It's a good topic, change is not always bad, running out of fuel is. ;)

Joker89
23rd Nov 2012, 07:35
Kalavo
You make some great points regarding military v The civil world. Thanks for the insight.

In regards to the exam. Being accurate to 5 or 10 kg is ridiculous. Delays in taxi, changes in temp / wind, final load sheet from forecast/planned will blow that out. After all you are in the planning stage and being within 100-200 kg should be more than sufficient for an aircraft the size of a 727.

345789
23rd Nov 2012, 08:12
I feel for the chaps who have taken leave from work, paid for accommodation, paid transport to/from AFT and paid for the course.... only to fail the ATPL exams, with AFT as primary study reference i.e. NH.

I had a chat to Gavin Secombe today, CASA flight crew licensing. The conversation went similar to this, "we are well aware of the concerns with the ATPL Flight planning exam. Further, we are more concerned of the reason why so many candidates are failing. As I speak, I am marking random candidates workings for the CASA ATPL Flight planning exam, and am trying to establish a root cause".

I asked plainly, if you had copies of the working material from candidates whom sat the exam, he replied YES!

Watch this space.

flighterpilot
23rd Nov 2012, 08:58
Well that sounds (somewhat) promising.

Meantime I've booked again...hopefully its fixed by then. I'll give them a week (and a few sitting dates) to see if they can work something out.

farmer dan
23rd Nov 2012, 10:10
"we are well aware of the concerns with the ATPL Flight planning exam. Further, we are more concerned of the reason why so many candidates are failing. As I speak, I am marking random candidates workings for the CASA ATPL Flight planning exam, and am trying to establish a root cause"

Ummm, so there are two factors here. The candidates and the exam. As far as I can see the candidates haven't magically changed, nor has the way it is being taught (not just N.H.). G.S. claims nothing has changed with the exam, so why is there a 93% failure rate? Maybe its time for G.S. to look in the mirror for the real issue.

If there has been such a major change to the exam (which there obviously has been), then CASA needs to release new guidelines regarding the exam and content. This should have been done BEFORE the new exam came online.

As for the argument that the exam weeds pilots out of the system, I agree it is a good thing, BUT this is not the right way to do it. Don't go changing the goal posts without telling anyone and expect people to be ok with it. CASA is toying with peoples livelihoods.

Again, I urge people to make a complaint to CASA.

Farmer Dan.

345789
23rd Nov 2012, 10:27
Farmer Dan

Apologies, vital information I should have included in my last post.

Gavin Secombe assures me the CASA ATPL Flight plan exam content and/ or questions have not changed.

josephfeatherweight
23rd Nov 2012, 10:34
Gavin Secombe assures me the CASA ATPL Flight plan exam content and/ or questions have not changed.
Then what happened when the exam was taken offline for a few (three?) days about a month ago to deal with the "cheating"? I don't believe that these weren't new questions.

gaunty
23rd Nov 2012, 11:44
John t.

:ok: wiseosity at its best. :cool:

alphacentauri
23rd Nov 2012, 11:55
Of course he assured you nothing changed....if he did then that would mean the logical explanation for all this lies at his/casa's end.

We can't have the regulator admitting they might have made an error.

The reality is that the candidates and course material had not changed. The issue has to be at the exam end.

So Gavin how about you level with us all and tell us what you changed?


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

kalavo
23rd Nov 2012, 15:56
Not getting any arguments from me. Don't agree with how they've gone about solving this problem, but it's their train set, not mine.

They did the same thing way back when I sat mine... the time allowed for some exams magically increased by half hour due to the number of people failing.

It's been interesting the further I got in to the industry. Certainly noticed a huge number of pilot's spending more time trying to work out how to cheat, rather than learning the content. With everything from where answers could be hidden, to which exam centers were less likely to check what you brought in. Very disappointing to be honest and obviously a large problem for the regulator if they've decided to shake things up in such a massive way.

drpixie
24th Nov 2012, 23:22
Adding to my story so far (and thanks to those who offered suggestions) ...

I contacted the relevant person at CASA (GS). He had obviously had many enquiries about FPL but was polite, clear, and unwavering.

His position was:
- the exam was recently updated (we know that),
- there is no problem with the exam (NO PROBLEM!),
- they are looking into why the current pass rate is so low (but there is NO PROBLEM with the exam), wouldn't say what the pass rate is,
- he suggested I continue retaking the exam until I pass (though at 5% pass rate, it could be a long time before the dice rolls in my favour),
- he didn't consider that the answers were very specific/close, or to acknowledge the idea of some standard of accuracy.

He was very clear that if I did the question is the "correct" manner, I'd get the "correct" answer. The correct manner is partially specified by the ATPL exam guide (it does specify temp and weight rounding clearly) - but the guide doesn't specify how to interpolate winds, so I'm not sure what magic method he used to get the correct answer. My thoughts, magic method #1: always extrapolate accurately to exactly 1/2, 2/3 or the FL required. Magic method #2: use F185 for descent, F235 for climb, use nearest for cruise. Magic method #3: some combination of #1 and #2. :ugh:

I'm unsurprised but pissed that this exam completely ignores the idea of testing the ability to flight plan to some level of accuracy - instead testing just that I know and can do just exactly what the examiner does. (It's like some of my Chinese PPL/CPL students asking what is the magic power setting I use for a perfect approach (they think it's perfect:O) ... must be that magic setting that we are given when we obtain CPL and do that thing with the goat and the secret handshake. Depending on the day/student, I answer either: "1743 rpm", or "whatever power gives you a perfect profile for that approach".)

So it seems that, at the moment, CASA has effectively ceased to issue ATPLs, except to that 5% of people who got really lucky. I do hope that wasn't their intention. Can I spell "overseas licence conversion"?

I suggest everyone affected both contact CASA and submit official complaints. The more obvious this becomes, the less slowly it will be dealt with.

training wheels
25th Nov 2012, 00:36
He was very clear that if I did the question is the "correct" manner, I'd get the "correct" answer. The correct manner is partially specified by the ATPL exam guide (it does specify temp and weight rounding clearly) - but the guide doesn't specify how to interpolate winds, so I'm not sure what magic method he used to get the correct answer. My thoughts, magic method #1: always extrapolate accurately to exactly 1/2, 2/3 or the FL required. Magic method #2: use F185 for descent, F235 for climb, use nearest for cruise. Magic method #3: some combination of #1 and #2. :ugh:

Good post DrPixie. I don't know whether the ATPL exam guide was around when I did mine, but it seems like it's only a partial guide. Why can't CASA produce a fully worked example in the guide so that everyone, and every course provider, is on a level playing field? This way, candidates can be assured that they're being examined on the objectives of the syllabus. As it is, it appears those who fail, fail due to some arbitrary method of extrapolating data, such as the example you provided.

When I did flight planning, I used AFT but also bought Rod Avery's notes and they both used very different methods with different 'rules of thumbs' resulting in slightly different answers.

josephfeatherweight
25th Nov 2012, 02:49
Someone has to provide "exam like questions" - for goodness sake, surely that's the point of doing a course and studying for an exam. I have never been offered any "special" practise questions or the like. I worked bloody hard juggling a young family and a very busy full time job, used my annual leave to attend what I thought was a very well run and delivered course, with some equally committed attendees, paid what is a bloody huge fee for an exam that appears flawed, and am wondering where to even start to attempt this exam again. I'm by no means the only one - I'm sure most others are in exactly the same boat. I'm not an idiot, I've achieved high 80s and some 90s for all the other subjects, all self studied. This exam is flawed and I'm pi$$ed off.

Capt Fathom
25th Nov 2012, 03:37
So what about the guys that did pass?
Did they know something the others didn't? Have a better understanding of the subject or how to go about the exam?
Or where they just plain lucky?

gaunty
25th Nov 2012, 03:56
Capt Fathom

I suspect were you to perform a strict statistical probability study on variance to the examination process and the results, at least to the long question/s, you might well find that a pass or fail is a matter of luck, just like in a casino.

The prior study involved, like counting cards in the casino, in all probability :rolleyes: only marginally increases the probability of "success" in your favour. But you gotta do what you gotta do. :8

Joker89
25th Nov 2012, 05:19
Someone in the USA was able to obtain (under freedom of information) the one thousand odd questions and answers that are used for the FAA ATP exam. This information was then sold as part of a training package.

A typical method for this exam is to purely study the question/answer. Perhaps we need to get something along the same lines. Obviously learning how to flight plan does not help you pass.

josephfeatherweight
25th Nov 2012, 07:58
A typical method for this exam is to purely study the question/answer. Perhaps we need to get something along the same lines. Obviously learning how to flight plan does not help you pass.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that sort of approach at all. I actually enjoyed studying flight planning, and I do believe it has worthwhile, tangible relevance to understanding real world flight planning. I certainly can say I have taken something away from the course I did at AFT. And, I can say that I strongly believe I now have a good grasp of the theory and the application. But, we're kidding ourselves if a fuel plan based on interpolated winds/sectors/temps/etc needs to be within 100kg on a jet that can carry nearly 30,000kg - that's not real world relevance.

I'm sure many of those that have gone before me (and passed) may scoff at this bloke who simply needs to harden up, do the study and get on with it, but the recent stats say that something is up...

Howard Hughes
25th Nov 2012, 08:05
Im no pointing the finger as I simply dont know. My best guess however, is that they made an ass of the changes and didnt test it. Id be surprised if they ever admitted it. Typical CASA disorganisation, lack of professionalism and blatant disregard for the pilots they serve.

Same IT experts as Airservices recent effort perhaps?;)

Joker89
25th Nov 2012, 08:40
JFW
I was just outlining the only approach left if this issue isn't rectified. Certainly would be a sad state of affairs. I haven't done the course but won't be starting till I am confident the result is not down to luck.

The Green Goblin
25th Nov 2012, 23:14
I'd say what CASA has done is used computerised flight planning software.

Then with the answers that have been spat out, they have put the wrong answers very close to the right answers.

Sounds to me like it's time to head the the US of A and get an FAA ATP then covert.

Leave your car running while you sit the exams :ok:

scavenger
26th Nov 2012, 01:16
Secombe always taught use of the integrated range charts that start on 3-3 of the manual.

No-one else does this because they don't have these type of charts for 1eng INOP, low altitude cruise etc - so it is impractical (so the theory went) to teach the use of two different types of chart.

i'd be willing to bet that Secombe has rejigged answers with the integrated range charts.

Has anyone who recently failed used the integrated range charts?

josephfeatherweight
26th Nov 2012, 07:30
AB,

That is some significant effort you have gone to - I for one am very appreciative! You've put in the hard yards for all of us.

PLEASE - everyone affected or sharing our concerns, support us and sign this online petition!

Many thanks,

Joe Lighty

aussietomcat
26th Nov 2012, 07:30
I know the person under question..... I met him and did one of his courses and failed miserably.... so I changed text and passed no problem. I also heard him talking crap about afp many times, so to me it looks like a sort of personal issue here.
The man is also a freak in math, so I think he expect everyone to be like him ?

aussietomcat
26th Nov 2012, 07:31
sign the petition guys, only 37 of us did it.

cooolridge
26th Nov 2012, 08:21
I'll also take this petition to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) Union I'm a member of, they should have some weight in convincing CASA something needs to be done. I encourage other members of AFAP to do the same

abovethecloud
26th Nov 2012, 12:10
I sat the exam on the 20th of November and as I hit the submit button I was feeling quite confident and when 40% showed up on the screen I was quite shocked. After reading this gives me a little relief that I didn't just waste two solid months studying most nights and on my RDOs.

cooolridge
26th Nov 2012, 21:29
Something needs to be done quickly, people are wasting a lot of their time and money re-studying and re-sitting this exam and some people are coming up to their 3 year limit

drpixie
27th Nov 2012, 01:42
I hope that everyone reads this and action is taken. I'm not holding my breath though.

Obviously been huge effort put into the petition.

But I strongly suggest that that everyone affected puts in a formal complaint to CASA. Petitions don't hold great sway, formal complaints must at least be considered.

There's a complain form under Contacts on the web.

flighterpilot
27th Nov 2012, 03:22
I am in the process of submitting a complaint via the online form on the CASA website. Based on the feedback from that I will sign the petition.

When will the petition be forwarded to the relevant parties?

717tech
27th Nov 2012, 06:52
My fault but I am in that boat.. Plan on doing the course early next year but will only leave me about 1.5 months before mine expire :ouch:
Don't have much confidence based on whats been said here!

farmer dan
29th Nov 2012, 04:47
Are people starting to pass or has anything changed???

JetA181
29th Nov 2012, 05:35
I have heard there is now only 50kg between exam answers?

Avturbound
29th Nov 2012, 11:12
Well I spoke to CASA and apparently they say that the exam content/syllabus/requirements/rounding figures have not changed and they are investigating why people are failing all of a sudden :ugh:

On another note I hear that all the main lecturers for the ATPL subjects have demanded a meeting with CASA late next week. :D

Sarcs
30th Nov 2012, 01:36
Hot off the press article on this subject, well done PP:ok::Testing to destruction – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/11/testing-to-destruction/)

Skydiveandy
30th Nov 2012, 01:48
Sarcs can you tell me which document your relating too ?

cooolridge
30th Nov 2012, 03:24
Reply I got from CASA after my complaint about the 94% failure rate of the new FP exam:


On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your feedback.* The Director has asked me to respond to you.
*
To maintain the integrity and quality of the flight crew licensing system, CASA recently made minor adjustments to the numeric parameters of the ATPL flight planning examination.* In other words, the figures used in some of the questions have been changed, without changing the substance of the question.* For example, a question that included a wind speed of X knots now has the wind speed value set at Y knots.* The question is otherwise the same.
*
Such variations are consistent with real-world flight planning requirements. Airline pilots are expected to be competent in basic mathematics, as well as the principles and methods of planning a flight in an air transport environment. A well- prepared candidate who has thoroughly studied the training syllabi should possess the necessary skills and knowledge to pass the flight planning examination.
*
CASA has not substantively re-written any exam questions. *The syllabi, form of the questions, thread, context or narrative within the questions has not been changed.
*
Historically, flight planning has always demanded a high level of skill and knowledge in flight planning principles, as well as competence in technique. *These are the minimum competencies that CASA would expect from a pilot wishing to undertake the duties of an air transport pilot.
*
CASA is mindful of recent increases in ATPL exam failure rates, and is looking into the basis of that.
*
*

cooolridge
30th Nov 2012, 05:30
What a great article!

It sums it up very well, I have sent the link to the article to CASA, see what they have to say

Joker89
30th Nov 2012, 06:11
From the CASA response in the article they seem to believe the exam is fine and that previously everyone must have been cheating

Joker89
30th Nov 2012, 09:04
That just goes to prove how ridiculous their logic is that it's the candidates and not the exam.

Livinthedream320
30th Nov 2012, 09:38
Come on Guys
We all have to put the hard yards in, A good tradesman never blames his tools ! I failed FP twice then nailed it on my third attempt 94% , but after review found the simple mistakes that I had made.
Personally when I failed for the second time I spent a minimum of 3-4 hours daily whilst working full time and studied most weekends for approx 8 plus hours to get myself up to speed with the subject, I know it's not easy but if you put the effort in you will achieve results.
I also attended AFT and can only highly recommend them and Nathan.

Good luck to all.

Roger Greendeck
30th Nov 2012, 09:51
I have never understood the time pressure applied to the ATPL(A) flight planning exam. It has been this way at least as far back as I can remember. Sure, you don't have unlimited time for planning in the real world but the same applies to navigation, met et al.

It has always struck me as more of a 'right of passage' than a meaningful assessment of a pilot's ability to do actual flight planning.

The argument that the average candidate finishes in less the allocated time is non-sequetur. Candidates will work to the rules. If they have to rush the whole exam they will do that and finish in about the the allocated time. This does not mean that they would not be more accurate if they had the time to be be careful.

I fully support the need for pilots to have detailed knowledge in this area but this particular exam has not been doing that for a long time. Likewise the systems exams that ask detailed questions about a certain model of 767 are rubbish as well. There are some types of systems that are representative but asking colors of specific parts of displays on the EADI... utter nonsense.:ugh:

farmer dan
30th Nov 2012, 10:43
Livin the dream: The people in the course put in the hard yards, I was there with them during and after class studying our asses off. We are not blaming our 'tools', rather the exam we were tested on. There were some super smart and dedicated students in the class. It wasn't just AFT, from what I hear the Melbourne exam had a 100% fail rate (again, from what I hear). If you are a maths wizz I'll explain it in maths terms.

A + B + C = D

A= students ( pretty much a constant)
B= the ASL exam system ( again, pretty much a constant)
C= the exam questions ( which have recently been updated/ re jigged/ etc= new variable, which CASA has claimed has not changed)
D= exam result ( which has also changed dramatically!!!!)

Since D has changed so much, either A, B or C must have changed significantly. A hasn't changed (from personal experience), and from what I know B hasn't either, which leaves C. So CASA, what has changed? A? B? C? Join the dots...

You have to admit that with a failure rate like 93% something has gone pear shaped on CASA's end.

Farmer Dan

cooolridge
1st Dec 2012, 03:11
My reply to CASA:

I do understand CASA has these requirements for an ATPL candidate but surely more than 6% of the potential candidates can meet them. I currently hold a Commercial Pilots Licence and had a mid 90% average for all my CASA CPL exam subjects. I also hold a Bachelors degree in Aviation and never in all my studies I have come upon an exam this difficult to pass and I'm sure a lot of people are with me on this one.*

Like I said earlier if only 6% of candidates can pass this exam than there will be a significant shortage of ATPL qualified pilots in the near future which would be highly detrimental to not only Australian aviation but also World aviation which I believe is against CASA's interests.*

I do understand CASA needs to uphold a minimum requirement for their ATPL holders but surely a minimum requirement that only 6% of it's candidates can achieve is unreasonable and unsustainable.*

The Aviation Advertiser has now come out with this article, please take time to read it as I believe it sums up the situation pretty well*

Testing to destruction – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/11/testing-to-destruction/)

The reply you did send me and obviously the author of this article and I'm sure many others, to me sounds like you are assuming the majority of the candiadates were cheating. I find it hard to believe that of the hundreds of people who sit this exam that the most of them would be cheating. For one I ask where would ALL these candidates get their cheat notes? If its assumed from a training school what about all the candidates that self study? And are all the training schools of this subject supplying cheat notes? And if this did happen why has only one person been caught? If cheating did occur frequently I'm sure it would have been picked up a lot earlier and by a lot more people. Don't let one person's actions reflect on the rest of the honest pilot community who use their annual leave and thousands of dollars of their own money to study extremely hard to pass this exam.

I believe it's only a matter of time until the wider public and politicians are aware of this issue so I hope a prompt and reasonable resolution can be made.

Denzeldude
1st Dec 2012, 04:13
If there's one good thing to come out of this, it's that those who have already passed their ATPL subjects will have a better chance of getting a job in the next couple of years if there are less applicants.:}

(it's a joke people):E

farmer dan
4th Dec 2012, 07:07
New update (sort of) at the bottom of this article:

Testing to destruction – updated – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/11/testing-to-destruction/)

Might be of interest.

josephfeatherweight
4th Dec 2012, 07:17
Don't hold your breath, friends...

The emails I have sent to CASA has been met with the same stonewall response everyone else has received - "there is nothing wrong with the exam."

Disappointingly, I received the same "standardised" response as others have posted on here and elsewhere (same response that aviation advertiser received) and none of my queries/questions were even hinted at being addressed.

I'm not sure what the next move is? Does anyone know if the theory trainers/providers had their meeting with CASA yet?

farmer dan
4th Dec 2012, 07:38
JFW.
Have you via email AND phone:

Contacted CLARC?
Contacted G.S.?
Made a official complaint to CASA!!!!?
Contacted AFAP (if you are not a member, why not?)
Contacted G.S. boss (M.T.) Ill give you a clue, his name is common with a awesome cricketer from about ten years ago).
Contacted your local federal member?
Make another official complaint!!

If you got to the end with no luck, start from the top again. It's like a dog with a bone.

flighterpilot
4th Dec 2012, 08:53
I made a complaint...heave heard nothing back...I will follow-up though.

@coolridge. I have sat before and after the suspension and disagree with you (though I don't mean that to sound confrontational)...Unless they have changed things back (quietly)... Hopefully.

Any news on when the aforementioned meeting bwtween theory training providers and CASA is to take place? Or if it has, to what outcome?

I don't suppose anyone here has contacts at The Australian that would be interested in helping the cause. The article on aviationadvertiser.com.au is a good starting point.

Keep plugging away...

OperatorX
5th Dec 2012, 02:54
I sat the exam today! Would have had better luck just picking the answers with a blind fold on I think! :ugh:

It was a first attempted for me and I was a little nervous going into it after reading the posts and listing to others who recently failed.

My working's got me to within 20kg of some answers. I was even more careful to not average and add extra legs. I really thought it was in the bag until I hit submit... (Maybe I was within 20kg of the wrong answer) never the less, that was the hardest exam I have ever sat (based on the ****ty time limit).

17 questions. 3 x 5marks
4 x 4marks
4 x 3marks
3 x 2marks
1 x 1marks

No KDR:yuk:

Roger Greendeck
6th Dec 2012, 02:55
Whilst I enjoy a good whinge here or in the bar as much as the next person, for those who have a genuine grievance contact the CASA Industry Complaints Commisioner on 02 6217 1717. And write to your local member and/or one of the senators currently taking a close look at CASA.

sarge75
7th Dec 2012, 02:27
Heard 1st hand of someone who got a phone call from casa today, was tol that they were wrong and he had passed and his paperwork would be sent out today.

He sat late November and originally was awarded a score in the low 60s

scavenger
7th Dec 2012, 03:24
I've heard the "gentleman" in charge at CASA is, or shortly will be, on leave to go to his annual religious retreat, so nothing will happen (including the meeting between theory providers and CASA) until the new year.:ugh:

farmer dan
7th Dec 2012, 03:48
He shouldn't be allowed to take holidays until he sorts out this mess.

Roger Greendeck
7th Dec 2012, 04:14
The exam these days is multiple choice. There is no assessment of the working. The only way CASA could change a mark is if they either changed the correct answer or increased the error margin and allowed for more than one correct answer.

It's improbable (but possible) CASA had the incorrect answer. The more likely answer, given the sudden increase in failures, it that they had reduced the margin and have now increased it. As the exam is marked by computer it is add to believe that it was a marking error.

seneca208
7th Dec 2012, 04:44
AFT students from the most recent AFPL sitting reported that their working out sheets were also collected by the ASL rep.

Unusual-Attitude
7th Dec 2012, 05:14
The working out sheets (3 from memory), are always collected, so you can't write down the questions off the screen and take them out with you, always been that way.

seneca208
7th Dec 2012, 05:28
Sorry, of course, but what I am hinting at was I think comments where made by ASL reps regarding their use following the exam. Some AFT guys will have to confirm.

Donwoody
19th Dec 2012, 00:57
I'm now hearing that a training organisation has developed "new course notes." I fear after working for 14 months on FP, taken 6 weeks leave, sat through two courses and about 4k spent, I'll now have to start again learning new stuff.

drpixie
21st Dec 2012, 02:20
Which training organisation might that be?

Ejector
21st Dec 2012, 04:08
Casa is outrageous. The same crap happened in about 93-94

flighterpilot
23rd Dec 2012, 22:45
Two other candidates and I passed last week so perhaps things are looking up?!

CASA have apparently pulled some questions. Words to the effect of; people had too much knowledge of exam questions so we adjusted some parameters without rewriting the questions, subsequently changed the available answers without rewriting anything (by the way - we didn't change anything, remember?). Then people brought to our attention that the exam was broken, but it wasn't and so we fixed it. Despite a huge increase in the failure rate, only a select few people were affected by the correctly-incorrect questions and we have subsequently fixed their exams retrospectively.

So the exam was(n't) broken for a period of time. Is it safe to assume that of those sitting exams while it was(n't) broken, that all their exams have been reassessed and that the net result is that the failure rate returned to the original 40% approximation during that period?

:ugh:

Joker89
17th Jan 2013, 06:30
Anybody else passed this exam recently?

Avturbound
20th Jan 2013, 01:42
Hey guy's/Jker89

I sat the Flight Planning exam last week. First attempt 82%.! was the last one, so no more ASL for me and suck it CASA I win! haha

In saying that I did a course at UNSW was struggling but spent 2 mths in the books and nothing else. Got to the exam didn't see any questions I was unsure about finished in the time frame and felt that It was one of the easiest exams I have sat, and I have had my fair share of fails.

PS UNSW prac exams gold, recommend over AFT anyday.
So was pleased!
Keep trucking guys it's not unbeatable! :ok:

Joker89
22nd Jan 2013, 08:00
Thanks AP,

Good work. As suspected the exam has probably been quietly fixed.

seneca208
6th Feb 2013, 21:55
Any info from the latest AFT course that just sat ATPL Flight Planning? Better luck this time round?

717tech
7th Feb 2013, 00:04
Unfortunately no such luck. I only heard of 3 that passed out of around 30. Myself included in the majority.

that guy
7th Feb 2013, 07:49
Sat it a few days ago and passed (finally!) AFT has updated their cyber exams and they seem to be closer to the 'new' casa standard of difficulty, you just need to get an update to the notes sent from aft with the workings for the new questions

josephfeatherweight
7th Feb 2013, 07:58
Thanks for the info!

The Green Goblin
8th Feb 2013, 07:49
Quote:
3 that passed out of around 30
You've got to be kidding me. It's time for some people at CASA to be dismissed sooner rather than later.

Or Gen Y to realize that you can't chuck some money and a couple of weeks to solve your problems.

To understand the complexities of the subject and to have the principles stick, you need to spend a good couple of months learning the subject.

morno
8th Feb 2013, 08:35
Or Gen Y to realize that you can't chuck some money and a couple of weeks to solve your problems.

To understand the complexities of the subject and to have the principles stick, you need to spend a good couple of months learning the subject.

Rubbish. I walked away with a good understanding of the principles and complexities of the subject with 2 weeks of learning. The theory school's teach what is required to satisfy the syllabus set by CASA. What else are we supposed to learn?

I'd be more interested to know how candidates from other ATPL instructors are going i.e. those who are perhaps taught how to work to an answer rather than utilise a particular exam technique which some have suggested is AFT's approach.

That was not AFT's approach when I sat the course last year. Yes, certain techniques are taught, but those techniques are more about how to achieve the workings of the answers in the required time. I don't know how else you would teach someone to pass this exam, apart from teaching only the questions.

morno

The Green Goblin
8th Feb 2013, 08:50
Well morno you're either incredibly bright, or incredibly naive.

I'd suggest its more a case of you don't know what you don't know.

You'll realise it one day too with the benefit of hindsight and career progression.

morno
8th Feb 2013, 09:46
GG,
Perhaps, but until they change the syllabus, then I'm a bit confused as to how I'm meant to learn more on the subject if they don't define what extra things I'm supposed to learn.

In reality, a good endorsement on an aircraft where these method's etc. are applicable, plus appropriate line training and learning from the guy in the left seat, should refine all these things they carry on about in the first place.

morno

The Green Goblin
8th Feb 2013, 09:59
GG,
Perhaps, but until they change the syllabus, then I'm a bit confused as to how I'm meant to learn more on the subject if they don't define what extra things I'm supposed to learn.

In reality, a good endorsement on an aircraft where these method's etc. are applicable, plus appropriate line training and learning from the guy in the left seat, should refine all these things they carry on about in the first place.

morno

Everything you said above demonstrates where you are at. Enjoy those rose coloured glasses.

Let me know when you find a place for a good endorsement in Australia too :)

morno
8th Feb 2013, 10:03
No need to get personal GG, I'm asking with genuine interest. How am I supposed to learn more about flight planning, if I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking at outside of what CASA stipulates in their own syllabus?

PLovett
8th Feb 2013, 10:11
morno, please understand that the ATPL exams, with some very minor bits out of certain subjects, have absolutely nothing to do with the real world of aviation, certainly not Flight Planning. They are merely a regulatory hurdle over which you must jump to attain the ATPL, nothing more. Anything to do with actually flying the aircraft will be taught later during the endorsement stage.

morno
8th Feb 2013, 10:19
PLovett, well aware of that. I'm not a 500hr pilot with no idea.

What I'm more asking is if Green Goblin is telling us we should spend months studying for these exams, but then says I have no clue when I've studied the relevant material, then what else am I supposed to be learning about?

morno

archangel7
8th Feb 2013, 10:56
haha this would have to be the funniest thread i have read in a long time:D thank's for making me laugh tonight guys. 'Awww I failed flight planning blame it on CASA' wtf?!?! Drink some cement and H H H Harden the **** UP!!

Pilotette
8th Feb 2013, 22:53
I completed all of my ATPLs prior to this debacle so have not had any experience with the current flight planning exam but I don't think it would be fair to blame AFT in this instance. A few of you seem to be gauging the exam on the pass & failure rates of the AFT classes but there are a few things that you need to consider.

Firstly, everyone's different, for some people 2 weeks in the class room is pretty intense and they feel like they need to sit the exam straight after the 2 weeks because they have put the pressure on themselves to do so because they are booked in for the next subject. When in actual fact, if they went away for a week and just practised and focused on building speed and accuracy they would come out with a much better result.

Secondly, a lot pf people attending the AFT course think it is a quick fix and guaranteed pass, unfortunately these people do the bare minimum of work in and out of class and expect it to be enough. It's not!

Thirdly, many pilots have been working full time and haven't had the time to self study, let alone go on a holiday, they have chosen to do the AFT course during their leave. This makes it hard for them to focus on spending their free time out of class studying, there are a few distractions nearby, the beach, pubs, family members or friends in Brisbane or the surrounds and this diverts their attention from what they should really be doing to get through the exam. Don't get me wrong, it's not easy or healthy locking yourself away and doing nothing but studying, you will need breaks! It's a fine line though.

This is all quite broad and not everyone falls into these categories but I've been up and done the AFT course and seen all of the above happen. Yes Flight Planning is not the easiest exam and I saw quite a few of my classmates who had studied their guts out, just miss out on a pass. But generally, the outcome depends on the work put in and most of the guys that only just failed would probably have benefitted from an extra week of practice.

If there is any advice I could give, try not to put too much pressure on yourselves, the AFT course is full on and can get tiring, if you're one of those people that need a bit of time to reconcile for yourself what was learnt in class, take that time! You don't need to sit all 4 subjects one after the other, AFT will let you break it up over a few courses.

Good luck :ok:

archangel7
9th Feb 2013, 03:12
I am not sure what you mean by " the current format" but I found the flight planing course at AFT second to none. I failed my first attempt and then I realised that I needed more time to self study and practice because the smallest error means you lose the 5 marks and then there is a good chance that you will fail the exam. Even though i had put alot of effort into it, 2 weeks was not enough. I needed more time to self study to benefit from the subject and the exam. I liked the fact that it was hard, challenging and based on the 727. It's old, its complicated and it's a reality to check. Anyways, So I decided to leave the course, go back home and self study the exam on my own. I studied the subject, did all the exercises and prac exams over and over and over again until I got 100%."trial and error" So, then when I felt comfortable with the exam I went and sat the exam and I think I got 88%. It's just one of those exams guys! I am sorry to say, you just need to learn the subject and the skills to pass this exam! unfortunately, there are no short cuts with this exam.

mtrench
9th Feb 2013, 04:37
Im pretty sure around 2006 when i did AFT there were only about 15 out of 40 odd who passed.. Some get it straight away, others didn't. It's a fast moving 2 weeks and you either get it and do the exam, or it snowballs and you end up not understanding half of what you do.

josephfeatherweight
9th Feb 2013, 04:52
I am not sure what you mean by " the current format" but I found the flight planing course at AFT second to none.
This thread has drifted significantly from whence it came - archangel7 and other recent contributors, please note that this was not originally a "boo hoo, ATPL flight planning is too hard" thread, but a thread detailing the sudden, and apparently unexplained drop in passes for this subject. I was one of the large number of people who went into the exam confident of my abilities and understanding of the subject and failed dismally. The ATPL theory providers around Australia (NOT just AFT) are scratching their heads as to the reason why their students are doing so poorly in the exam. The following is info I have gleaned from my emails/letters/phone calls to CASA and other affected organisations/individuals:
- CASA changed their Flight Planning questions in response to evidence of cheating
- the fail rate has skyrocketed
- CASA steadfastly claim there is nothing wrong/different with their exam other than changes to the data in the questions
- there is only one individual responsible for implementing the changes to the questions, a former ATPL theory provider
My concerns focus on the "who's checking the checker?" situation that arises when an individual implements changes and then conducts his own workings to arrive at an answer. In my opinion only, it is clear that this gentleman, through no malice mind you, has his own slant on how to calculate these answers - which could be different enough to arrive at a different result to that of all the students who have been studying with the various theory providers.
Anyone who has done Flight Planning would agree that using slightly different levels of interpolation can result in different answers - and yes, I know that the level of interpolation is published by CASA, but there is SO much room for that "personal touch".
So, note that this thread is about the seismic shift in recent results due to a known change to the exam database, not a bunch of whingers who haven't done enough work.

gcpilot
12th Feb 2013, 22:42
Just wondering if anyone has had any feedback regarding the ATPL classes at UNSW.

FAR CU
18th Feb 2013, 03:20
. . . understand that the ATPL exams, with some very minor bits out of certain subjects, have absolutely nothing to do with the real world of aviation, certainly not Flight Planning.

Certainly my experience too, though that was years ago. The late John Bally
was a CAA and DOT examiner of airmen then FOI. . . very emphatic on this subject.
(Well he was a Hungarian. . . . . nicknamed 'The hairy hound from Budapest')

'It is not a test so much to see what you know but how good you are at
applying yourself to the discipline of study.' is pretty close to the message he tried to get across to young uncomprehending students. grrr. . . grrr

drpixie
21st Feb 2013, 09:43
For those wanting an idea about what's on the current FP exam - I've seen the before (old - a couple of years ago), during (new/broken) and after (current) exams. I just re-sat it and passed – hooray - not a great pass but they do say "anything over 70% is just showing off". :O

Having seen the range of exams, I think the current exam is similar to the 'old' (pre- all the fuss) exam but I perhaps a little harder. I didn't have much time remaining for double checking anything. The current exam certainly much more do-able than the 'new' ("nothing has changed but somehow no one is passing") exam from around Nov/Dec. :ugh:

My feeling is that the exam now involves a bit more work (and thus pressure). A couple of the old easy questions about turbulence limits, 2 engine out perf, etc are gone (those marks replaced with more involved planning questions?)

My recent (current) exam had a couple of easy max alt questions ... given BRW x, ISA dev y (or a given RSWT), track/east/west, max level is? Or fastest GS is? I also saw a couple of easy marks for fuel burn or fuel flow for a specified leg. There were 2 or 3 loading questions like … find MTOW or payload or FOB for given situation. Hopefully easy marks. Also a couple of "find the CP" to maybe 30nm tolerance.

Other than that, all the questions were 3/4/5 marks for variations on "complete a flight plan to find landing-weight, or fuel burn, or fuel required, time at, or PNR location". The actual plans were 3 or 4 stages (including climb/descent) or much longer but then you're given some intermediate weights. Seemed to be the old favourite routes and combinations of normal ops, DP, 2 engine, gear-down, yaw-damper, CP, and inflight v. planning – presumably with new questions or conditions.

The tolerances on answers seemed much more like the old exam. None of that silly precision from Nov/Dec. :D

Now what seemed to work. For many questions my calcs often got very close to one of the official guesses, so presumably most of my calculation methods were good:


As per the CASA ATPL guide, I rounded all winds to nearest +-10deg/+-5k (even when it was easy to interpolate more accurately).
As per the CASA guide, I rounded climb conditions to the nearest 5deg and 2 tonne, did not interpolate except to average +10+20 for +15 etc. For hold conditions, I rounded to nearest tonne or 1000' and interpolated accordingly.
I used the “inflight” figures (fuel flows) for everything, not the “integrated range” tables, except for TAS.
Several questions featured small climbs, I used the 50kg / 1000' step climb allowance.
I adjusted fuel burns to nearest degree, using FB x (300+dev) / 300, or 500 for the hold. (NOT rounded to nearest 3 or 5 degrees giving 1% steps.)
I used accurate tracks and combined multiple legs wherever the winds were similar.
I calculated adjusted head/tail-winds to allow for tracking into the crosswind. On a Jepps whizzwheel, you do that calc around the edge and I think they call it the effective head/tail-wind.


I can't claim this is all correct (I got some wrong) but it worked for me – and under exam pressure, I make silly mistakes (head <-> tail wind, read computer wrongly, etc), which would account for the errors. Or maybe some exam question/answers are still wrong!

Re recent posts I think you are clearly NOT asked for the most accurate answer / best flight plan. You are tested for conformance to the “official” method. That sort-of makes sense for SOP environments, but it would be better if the official method were more fully and clearly specified.

Now on to Air Law … wish me luck.

xxRED BARONxx
21st Feb 2013, 10:16
I studied both the AFT and Rob Avery methods for this exam and I found the Rob Avery (draw the picture and write stuff everywhere) method much more efficient and effective during the exam. Efficient because I could answer the same 5 mark question in about 20-23 mins using AFT and 16-18 mins using the Avery method. Effective because my brain turning to mush during the 3 hour exam was somewhat delayed because the avery (draw the picture) method gave me a visual idea of what the question was asking and what I needed to do, where as I found the AFT grid method became very monotonous and concentration was easily lost as time went on.

In addition, I used different colored highlighters to highlight the 727 blue book so that whenever I was on the relevant page I knew exactly what I needed to do on that page and nothing was forgotten. Get a scrap piece of paper at the start and write down all the SGRs and other formulas you may need too because you dont want to be relying on memory to dig them out when your an hour and a half in pulling your hair out from the stress.

Also, its very important to do the exam backwards imo, aka do all the 5 markers first, then 4 markers, then 3 markers etc, because usually theres 3 five markers and if you get one wrong you can kiss 10% goodbye so you really need maximum concentration to get the 3 five markers right to have a real chance at passing.

Finally, a can of redbull may be cracked open after youve finished the first hour (and hopefully all the 5 mark questions) as a reward/to keep you awake!!:ok:

Runaway Gun
30th Apr 2013, 10:40
There is a reason why 100% isn't achievable by most mortals: CASA themselves advise that it's unlikely to be finished within the time allowed.

crikeys
30th Apr 2013, 21:46
Anyone heard how AFT's pass rate is going, regarding recent changes?

Username here
4th Jun 2013, 07:29
Hey guys,

Anyone recently done AFPA with AFT notes? How close are the praccy exams to the real thing?

Just finished my first praccy exam with a result in the mid seventies (after 2 1/2 hours - I didn't check answers in the practice as I want to see what to expect if I have no extra time on the day) Im wondering what score on the AFT exams would keep me safe on the day.

Are the AFT exams easier/the same/harder than the CASA exam? I've got a week and a half until D-Day... Nerves are setting in!

Cheers for the help.

farmer dan
4th Jun 2013, 11:27
I found AFT practice exams to be a good representation of the real exam. Good luck, remember to have a decent meal before, 3 hours is a long time. FD

josephfeatherweight
4th Jun 2013, 12:47
The AFT cyberexams are a good representation of the real thing. Finally passed just recently. I reckon you want to be getting around 85% to 100% for the AFT practice exams though.
The CASA Flight Planning exam is a farce. Accuracy to around 200kg for a jet that carries 20,000kg is bananas - especially under time pressure. They should be teaching the theory (thoroughly), not how fast you can punch numbers on a calculator without making a mistake.
But everyone already knows that...