UK EASA PPL Ground exam thoughts & infringements

[Philrogan]

Hi everyone,

Just completed a few more EASA PPL ground studies.

I now have

Aviation Law
Human Performance
Navigation
Principles of flight
Flight planning and performance.

My thoughts on the Examinations as a whole.

The navigation Exam i thought was ment to be about Navigation.

In the exam i used my whizz wheel (CRP-1 Computer) twice

once to work out the Wind vector and the other to work out the correct magnetic track to fly)

The remainder of the questions was geared to International flight such as Charts, Mercator charts or Lateral conformal

the rotation of the planet and more geared to very little Navigation on a whole...

although i don't blame the CAA it is down to EASA, the CAA summoned all the heads of training to Gatwick for a conference.

They went on Mildly telling off that infringements were down to the poor training at Flying schools, maybe if they gave a Navigation exam that actually was geared to the Navigation side of things instead of Astro-physics then Infringements would be a lot less.

Yes Infringements are bad and are solely down to Pilot error, but i think the CAA haven't done a great deal in the Ground examinations to reduce it.

What are your thoughts on the new PPL Ground examinations?

[Whopity]

although i don't blame the CAA it is down to EASA,Actually its not, the CAA write the Exams, the syllabus has been around since the 1950s largely unchanged, bits have been added to it from time to time.
The navigation Exam i thought was ment to be about Navigation.Navigation theory and practice are two quite different things but should go hand in glove. The people who write the exams invariably have a background in military or commercial level theoretical training and have little or no exposure to PPL training making it almost impossible to judge the level of knowledge required for a PPL. The emphasis is not on checking if a candidate posses essential knowledge but rather on errecting an academic hurdle to obtaining a licence in the misguided belief it will impart some useful knowledge.

The CAA largely disposed of its professional exam writers (GE) in the 1990s, as in theory they would not be needed under JAR. The few that remained were not established to write PPL exams, it was a secondary activity that was only dealt with if it was essential and time could be found. At one point there were no GEs employed by the CAA.

Put simply, none of the theoretical knowledge training has any impact upon infringements except perhaps to make the situation worse due to the absence of any coherence in the whole training process.

[airwave45]

The current nav / flight planning exams are an embarrassing shambles.
You need to know how to relate utc to new dehli or someplace in russia but don't need to know how to check notams.
You need to know the tilt of the planet but not anything about "booking out".

There are people who need to know about utc versus local mean time in new dheli, the cpl exam is for them.
Oddly, some of the people doing the easa ppl exams want to fly recreationally.
Most of the people doing the cpl want to fly for a day job.
Save the irrelevant punishment for those daft enough to want to commit aviation as a day job . . . .

Despite having sat the same exams some months ago, I still want to boot the question writer in the goolies for making me learn useless twaddle before I can go flying on my own......

Best of luck with the other exams, buy the ipad app with the questions and answers on it and learn them rote.
After you have passed the exams spend time with your favourite instructor actually learning what you feel to be useful stuff.

[fireflybob]

Put simply, none of the theoretical knowledge training has any impact upon infringements except perhaps to make the situation worse due to the absence of any coherence in the whole training process.

Whopity, well said!

Yes Infringements are bad and are solely down to Pilot error,

I see them more as an overall "system" error.

For example, how are we training the instructors to teach sound pilot navigation skills? How are we training students to navigate?

[wally789]

Hi,

I'm converting to an NPPL - SLMG and am revising Navigation. For anyone who's taken the new exam, is it true that there's no actual plotting on maps etc?

I've heard from a few places that it's all about Transverse Mercators and other essentials.

Having done the bronze gliding exam recently, the focus is on, er, the ability to navigate. That is, to plan a route on a map in context of time, hieghts, restrictions etc.

Do I need to bring rulers, plotting compass, acetone and all that? Or is it just a range of Q & A?

Thanks in advance.

[airwave45]

There is some plotting to be done, the exam location needs an old south of England map
Basically a test to see whether you can find a spot on a map from lat long reference.
And then a test to see if you can use the correct scale on the ruler.

[Mach Jump]

The current nav / flight planning exams are an embarrassing shambles.
Best of luck with the other exams, buy the ipad app with the questions and answers on it and learn them rote.
After you have passed the exams spend time with your favourite instructor actually learning what you feel to be useful stuff.

Couldn't have put it better, except I would include the whole CAA PPL 9 Exam/6 Sittings regime. Google 'EASA PPL Exams by Robert Macphee'. Works with both iPad and Android. Best £9 you will have ever spent.


MJ:ok:

[BackPacker]

The current nav / flight planning exams are an embarrassing shambles.

Would this not be something for AOPA and similar organizations, to bring to the attention of the CAA? It seems to me the EASA transition would be the right time for AOPA and similar to offer to the CAA to revise the set of exam questions (under some sort of NDA obviously) and come up with a new set that is:
a. Up to date, taking into account modern navigation methods, new insights in human factors, developments in airframe/powerplant technology, use of internet for flight planning and such.
b. Unambiguous, well formulated
c. Relevant to the new EASA syllabus and private flying.

We're always bitching about the CAA but to some extent they're doing a thankless job in tough circumstances. And writing exams doesn't generate any money whatsoever. They may just be grateful to accept our help.

[Mickey Kaye]

I think every man and his dog has told the CAA that the latest PPL theoretical papers are not fit for purpose. I am also certain that they were told this BEFORE they were actually released them. But they themselves stated they had consulted with industry and that they were a positive step forward (There is a press release somewhere stating this). This was either completely unture or more likely shows that the CAA are completely out of touch with the industry they are supposed to regulate.

The nine exams and six sitting and 10 days a sittings is a shambles as well.

I do hope however that they redeem themselves at some point and revisit the EASA requirements. Which basically state 1 exam of 120 questions covering all 9 subjects and you are allowed 6 sitting to pass it.

[riverrock83]

Actually its not, the CAA write the Exams, the syllabus has been around since the 1950s largely unchanged, bits have been added to it from time to time.

Whopity - I'm genuinely curious. I'd understood that there was an EASA wide question bank, which is used by each of the member states. I had thought (although not seen documented) that each exam question comes from the question bank before being amended to make it region specific (so Nav exam relates to items in England, not Spain) and language is translated.

As such - the only job the CAA has to do is to regionalise the questions and select an appropriate blend of questions from across that subject. As such - there was no need to professional exam writers.

I presume I'm wrong about that? Is that only for CPL / ATPL / IR ?

[Mach Jump]

riverrock83

I'm afraid so.

Each National Authority can include whatever absurdities they care to dream up.

Our CAA have made a complete dog's breakfast of the entire PPL Theoretical Knowlege regime.

Their 9 Exam, 6 ten day sittings scheme is a ridiculous perversion of the original EASA recommendation.

As Mickey said, they were told repeatedly that it was an unworkable shambles before it was introduced, but as usual, they knew best.


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

I'd understood that there was an EASA wide question bankThere is for the ATPL, it was inherited warts and all from the JAA. EASA tried to produce their own professional question bank but ran out of money, just as well as the quality of the new questions was worse than the inherited ones. In theory, PPL level questions could be withdrawn from that question bank however; that would compromise the CQB by sending it out to examiners.

The new UK questions are within the syllabus, but that is so poorly defined anything could be in the syllabus, relevant or not! If a person is tasked with writing questions when they have no experience of teaching or examining at PPL level, it is not surprising we finish up with the current set of largely irrelevant questions. EASA documents refer to the importance of integrating ground and flight training, yet most of the exams produced by the Regulator have no correlation with the flight training at all.

[riverrock83]

it is not surprising we finish up with the current set of largely irrelevant questions.
...
yet most of the exams produced by the Regulator have no correlation with the flight training at all.

No arguments here! Thanks

[soaringhigh650]

Yes Infringements are ... solely down to Pilot error,

No. It's a problem that only manifests itself in the UK.

Their air traffic control systems are not joined up and their airspace is a mess.

Where else do you fly and get 20 squawk code changes, 20 altimeter settings, 20 re-routes to dodge Class A, and having to re-tell everyone your whole life story, in such a small space of time?

Where else do you have to thread the needle through high risk collision spots while avoiding busting the other guy's airspace?

Other countries don't have these issues at all.

[Mach Jump]

Their air traffic control systems are not joined up and their airspace is a mess.

Where else do you fly and get 20 squawk code changes, 20 altimeter settings, 20 re-routes to dodge Class A, and having to re-tell everyone your whole life story, in such a small space of time?

Where else do you have to thread the needle through high risk collision spots while avoiding busting the other guy's airspace?

No argument there SH, but to be fair, most of Europe has the same problems. We can't even agree on a common Transition Altitude!

None of the above is going to change anytime soon though, so we have to deal with it as it is.

Airspace infringements will continue, and we should acknolwege that many are caused by poor training, and try to iomprove that, but just as many, if not more are caused by pilots who are perfectly well trained but just cant be bothered to follow their training once they have a licence.

I think that the easier we make it to get the information we need, the more likely it is that this second group will be bothered to get it right. The introduction of free access to SkyDemon Light flight planning software was a huge step foreward, but we don't promote it anywhere near enough.

Also, whilst we have to open an account with the Met Office and log on every time to get any information from them, then the 'can't be bothered' pilots won't bother.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the trendy 'Red Tape Challenge', the general trend iin Europe is to load everything down with bureaucratic dogma.


MJ:ok:

[soaringhigh650]

The UK air traffic controllers keep pointing fingers at pilots for navigation errors.

Little do they know that it's also down to the airspace designers and planners who fail to fully understand the limitations of pilot and aircraft navigation performance.

In the USA we don't need GPS airspace warning alert systems and nobody has ever launched a campaign on reducing airspace incursions.

Why do you think that is?

May infringements continue until someone actually takes a holistic look at airspace.

[dublinpilot]

The UK air traffic controllers keep pointing fingers at pilots for navigation errors.

Little do they know that it's also down to the airspace designers and planners who fail to fully understand the limitations of pilot and aircraft navigation performance.


There is a circular problem here.

1. Airports ask for lots of controlled airspace.
2. Everyone else resists because of prior experience with transit requests and they get the minimum necessary to do their job
3. Because the airspace is small (or perhaps other reasons) transits are not readilly approved.
4. Go back to 1.

Because they get the minimum necessary, the design is awkward as you describe above.

I think you're dead right about the lack of joined up ATC in the UK. In the Republic of Ireland we have just two FIS (both with radar). Dublin & Shannon. People use them becuase they are easy to use and not much bother, and I'm sure that they help prevent these problems.

Same with France. A nice joined up FIS system. I wouldn't dream of flying through France without using a FIS, as it's so useful. And using it probably reduces my chances of making an infringment by an order of mangitude as they see me on radar and actually follow my flight and anticipate my transits (and will in fact often negociate them for me and avoid me having to change frequency never mind squwak code).

When the UK becomes like that (which I don't see happening any time soon) then pilots won't resist controlled airspace to the same extent, and infringments will reduce.