oxford atpl books are ok...?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: italy
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oxford atpl books are ok...?
hello!
i whould like to know if the 14 books af oxford atpl from october 2001 are still ok to study or are obsoletes?
becouse
i will study the atpl with cats but i listened that their books
are not the top,
so i look to download the oxford atpl too,to be sure and confront with the cats when i will start study with cats.
i just finish to download all the oxford atpl but is write that is from october 2001 and i m not sure if study from these book s or not.
are so old?
are ok to study?
i can use it?
sincerily thanks in advance
i whould like to know if the 14 books af oxford atpl from october 2001 are still ok to study or are obsoletes?
becouse
i will study the atpl with cats but i listened that their books
are not the top,
so i look to download the oxford atpl too,to be sure and confront with the cats when i will start study with cats.
i just finish to download all the oxford atpl but is write that is from october 2001 and i m not sure if study from these book s or not.
are so old?
are ok to study?
i can use it?
sincerily thanks in advance
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Inside CAS
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the entire set of Oxford ATPL books to supplement the material from my actual training provider - Bristol GS.
Yes, the books are very good, and contain superb illustrations, but I would say that they tend to drop down into much more detail than is actually required to become "exam ready" especially if you are on a tight timescale. Sometimes this is beneficial of course, but speaking from experience of tackling a subject using both Oxford and BGS material, much quicker progress is made with the latter. You don't actually need to remember who invented x, why they invented it, and how it evolved to become y (for example).
The specimen questions in the Oxford books are very useful though - in my experience are harder than the actual exams questions: train hard, fight easy! (disclaimer: I base that comment on the BGS question bank - I sit my first exams in 6 weeks).
So, yes they are great books. But be careful to identify what you need to learn or remember out of them.
Hope that helps!
Yes, the books are very good, and contain superb illustrations, but I would say that they tend to drop down into much more detail than is actually required to become "exam ready" especially if you are on a tight timescale. Sometimes this is beneficial of course, but speaking from experience of tackling a subject using both Oxford and BGS material, much quicker progress is made with the latter. You don't actually need to remember who invented x, why they invented it, and how it evolved to become y (for example).
The specimen questions in the Oxford books are very useful though - in my experience are harder than the actual exams questions: train hard, fight easy! (disclaimer: I base that comment on the BGS question bank - I sit my first exams in 6 weeks).
So, yes they are great books. But be careful to identify what you need to learn or remember out of them.
Hope that helps!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: within a range of RPG
Age: 49
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oxford are ok, they are most informative and largest ones. I used Atlantic Jeppesenfor my ATPL exams, and recently i borrowed Nordian for knowledge refresh.
There is big diferance in number of pages (Air Law Oxford-670 pages Atlantic 322, Nordian 290)
Also Oxford and Alantic can be found for download, but as Phil mentioned, there is something called copyright, and you are violating it (well I also downloaded them to check them out, bought them after that
)
There is big diferance in number of pages (Air Law Oxford-670 pages Atlantic 322, Nordian 290)
Also Oxford and Alantic can be found for download, but as Phil mentioned, there is something called copyright, and you are violating it (well I also downloaded them to check them out, bought them after that
)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: at the whim of people I've never met
Age: 46
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD02FLY - from nowhere legal so don't expect people to incriminate themselves or put this site at risk by posting links to illegal material 
PS - Google is your friend
PS - Google is your friend
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Here and there
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emilian,
I too studied at CATS and also had the Oxford material. I found that CATS was sufficient and covered all the necessary points. The Oxford material was also sufficient, and the material was written in another style, which helped with understanding sometimes.
I don't know if the 2001 material is that far off, but the only changes that may be relevant are within the law section. Although, other subjects may have been updated to more accurately reflect the current testing areas.
Why don't you just stick with the CATS material for now, and then supplement with Oxford where necessary.
I too studied at CATS and also had the Oxford material. I found that CATS was sufficient and covered all the necessary points. The Oxford material was also sufficient, and the material was written in another style, which helped with understanding sometimes.
I don't know if the 2001 material is that far off, but the only changes that may be relevant are within the law section. Although, other subjects may have been updated to more accurately reflect the current testing areas.
Why don't you just stick with the CATS material for now, and then supplement with Oxford where necessary.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ireland
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used the Oxford manuals and found them a bit hit and miss to be honest - I found them difficult to learn as a student but having passed the exams I do find myself using them often as a reference and reminder tool.
I thought the General Navigaton and Meteorology manuals were very good but then others such as Air Law seemed to have been cobbled together just to fit JAR knowledge objectives without too much thought being put into it.
I only used the Oxford manuals myself so I don't really have a frame of reference to compare them with. But as others have said they do go into more detail than needed usually.
I wouldn't use them for distance-learning as one could easily get bogged-down with learning the more unnecessary details - If in a full-time ground school the student would be guided to the more important areas by the Ground instructor so I think they would be better in that scenario.
I thought the General Navigaton and Meteorology manuals were very good but then others such as Air Law seemed to have been cobbled together just to fit JAR knowledge objectives without too much thought being put into it.
I only used the Oxford manuals myself so I don't really have a frame of reference to compare them with. But as others have said they do go into more detail than needed usually.
I wouldn't use them for distance-learning as one could easily get bogged-down with learning the more unnecessary details - If in a full-time ground school the student would be guided to the more important areas by the Ground instructor so I think they would be better in that scenario.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say the 2001 material is probably revision 1 or 2. The current revision is 5. I have revision 4 and the biggest improvement here was that the 15th book of reference material was done away and split into the relevant sections of the first 14 books and sample questions were placed at the end of each chapter instead of at the end of each book. Both of these improvements would be a Godsend if using a PDF version and lo and behold, Oxford released their own CD holding the PDFs about a year ago. You'd think they had PDF navigation in mind when they moved this material into the chapters where you might need it.
It could be maddening to try navigating what I assume must be a scanned PDF version from a copyright infringement mill somewhere in the third world, but if it's just augmenting your FTO provided manuals, maybe it's worth the bother for occasional usage.
It could be maddening to try navigating what I assume must be a scanned PDF version from a copyright infringement mill somewhere in the third world, but if it's just augmenting your FTO provided manuals, maybe it's worth the bother for occasional usage.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Oxford books are the best, if you really are interested in knowing things a bit deeper then just passing your exams.
I have tried a few others too, and would say there are some pretty awful notes lurking around from other companies, but dont wish to name and shame them. But a hint is that they are more expensive then the Oxford books, and are completely waste of space!
Distance learning, probably the best the Bristol CD together with some of Oxford CBT and books. Jeppesen not that bad either, an older version of Oxford. Only thing, there is more than you need to know with Oxford, for the ones just looking to pass the theory exams.
I have tried a few others too, and would say there are some pretty awful notes lurking around from other companies, but dont wish to name and shame them. But a hint is that they are more expensive then the Oxford books, and are completely waste of space!
Distance learning, probably the best the Bristol CD together with some of Oxford CBT and books. Jeppesen not that bad either, an older version of Oxford. Only thing, there is more than you need to know with Oxford, for the ones just looking to pass the theory exams.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: HKG
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, too, have found a source for the Oxford books, but fourth edition/revision. I think circa 2008, if memory serves me right. Does anybody know exactly what, if anything, is obsolete? I've heard that Airlaw 01 is the most likely to be out of date, but I have no specifics. I'm about to begin DL with CATS, so any glaring inaccuracy is going to come up upon reading, better safe than sorry.
