Learning Objectives & Questions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Learning Objectives & Questions
Hi there,
I recently attended a Rulemaking Committee meeting at EASA, the purpose of which was to review the current Learning Objectives for the EASA exams and, by extension, the questions. Aside from various Authorities, also present were representatives from the training industry, ranging from major airline schools to independent theoretical knowledge providers.
Feedback from various interested parties indicated that the present rote learning system was not suitable for modern circumstances, especially in the light of recent accidents that could only be put down to lack of in-depth knowledge. Having said that, it was also acknowledged that knowing the colour of the gas in a ring laser gyro (for example) was also less than beneficial. The main problem appears to be that, while pilots come out of the exams knowing many facts, there seems to be an inability to understand the subject, and later apply the knowledge gained. This especially showed up in simulator training.
After two days, the conclusion was that the new questions being added to the ECQB would be written in a way that would test the application of knowledge. Given that many authorities are now using electronic exam systems, the technology now exists to use different forms of questions, such as requiring the insertion of a word or a number in response to a question, as is already done in Germany (on another note, the intention is, at some stage, to reduce the number of multi-choice responses to three).
However, the questions are secondary to the Learning Objectives, and it is these that will be getting a major overhaul, starting with a "quick fix" so that new questions are not written in areas that will later be redundant (due to the rulemaking process within Europe, there is a small window of opportunity to change legislation in the very near future, but the total process is expected to take around 18 months to 2 years).
So, there is going to be a major overhaul of the Learning Objectives, this time by the end users and those who are going to be doing the teaching. The main subject areas will likely remain as they are, with the possible combination of VFR & IFR communications, and the addition of a mental maths exam, as the modern education system seems to leave major gaps in the abilities of new cadets (although such questions may also be included in an exam that currently does not require a calculator).
I recently attended a Rulemaking Committee meeting at EASA, the purpose of which was to review the current Learning Objectives for the EASA exams and, by extension, the questions. Aside from various Authorities, also present were representatives from the training industry, ranging from major airline schools to independent theoretical knowledge providers.
Feedback from various interested parties indicated that the present rote learning system was not suitable for modern circumstances, especially in the light of recent accidents that could only be put down to lack of in-depth knowledge. Having said that, it was also acknowledged that knowing the colour of the gas in a ring laser gyro (for example) was also less than beneficial. The main problem appears to be that, while pilots come out of the exams knowing many facts, there seems to be an inability to understand the subject, and later apply the knowledge gained. This especially showed up in simulator training.
After two days, the conclusion was that the new questions being added to the ECQB would be written in a way that would test the application of knowledge. Given that many authorities are now using electronic exam systems, the technology now exists to use different forms of questions, such as requiring the insertion of a word or a number in response to a question, as is already done in Germany (on another note, the intention is, at some stage, to reduce the number of multi-choice responses to three).
However, the questions are secondary to the Learning Objectives, and it is these that will be getting a major overhaul, starting with a "quick fix" so that new questions are not written in areas that will later be redundant (due to the rulemaking process within Europe, there is a small window of opportunity to change legislation in the very near future, but the total process is expected to take around 18 months to 2 years).
So, there is going to be a major overhaul of the Learning Objectives, this time by the end users and those who are going to be doing the teaching. The main subject areas will likely remain as they are, with the possible combination of VFR & IFR communications, and the addition of a mental maths exam, as the modern education system seems to leave major gaps in the abilities of new cadets (although such questions may also be included in an exam that currently does not require a calculator).
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They cannot retain the knowledge because they are trained in such speed that is almost impossible to remember (specially the integrated ones). But, more quickly-->new folk students-->more money in the pocket for the school!
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Age: 37
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProPilot
PACO
What do you think of the ProPilot 7-month KSA course that also has a practical element to it?
i.e. not just classroom-based, but with trips to the hangar, flightdeck etc etc
Isn't that a better way to learn?
Rather than just reading about tyre treads and pressures, go out to an airplane and check them ...
Did they mention course lengths at the meeting? Even 8 months wouldn't be excessive if it meant better learning. Thx
What do you think of the ProPilot 7-month KSA course that also has a practical element to it?
i.e. not just classroom-based, but with trips to the hangar, flightdeck etc etc
Isn't that a better way to learn?
Rather than just reading about tyre treads and pressures, go out to an airplane and check them ...
Did they mention course lengths at the meeting? Even 8 months wouldn't be excessive if it meant better learning. Thx
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I think the number of hours of study is likely to remain the same, although there were thoughts about not having it based on hours alone. Probably a bit of a walk on the wild side at the moment but I remember doing the whole lot in 8 weeks!
I'm all for practical stuff - we use our humble 206 sim here for starting turbine engines and getting used to the glass cockpit - students learn more in an hour with that than more than twice that listening to me wittering away
I don't know exactly what Propilot do in that respect, but from what you say it sounds a step in the right direction. To us, the key is in understanding the subject, and part of our approach is to explain why you need to know it - by the time you end your career, you will have used probably 90% of the syllabus.
As a helicopter specialist, the more contentious areas lie with stuff that just isn't needed, like upper level airways (for helicopters)
but also stuff that just isn't there, like more graph work in Performance. Forunately I'm also involved with writing more questions for just those areas which hopefully will have more relevance to the real world.
I'm all for practical stuff - we use our humble 206 sim here for starting turbine engines and getting used to the glass cockpit - students learn more in an hour with that than more than twice that listening to me wittering away
I don't know exactly what Propilot do in that respect, but from what you say it sounds a step in the right direction. To us, the key is in understanding the subject, and part of our approach is to explain why you need to know it - by the time you end your career, you will have used probably 90% of the syllabus.
As a helicopter specialist, the more contentious areas lie with stuff that just isn't needed, like upper level airways (for helicopters)
but also stuff that just isn't there, like more graph work in Performance. Forunately I'm also involved with writing more questions for just those areas which hopefully will have more relevance to the real world.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, first of I find it quite remarkable to hear that EASA finally realizes that their concept of "rote learning" apparently doesn't generate the desired outcome = knowledgeable pilots!
On the other hand I must clearly say, my hopes that things will take a change for the better suddenly vanished into thin air as I read the following statement(s):
Please, stop adding additional questions to the already completely overblown "pool of nonsense" = ECQB!!! In my opinion, thats definitely a step in the wrong direction!!!
How long will it take EASA to finally realize that the issue won't be solved by continuously adding new questions? The problem is the testing/exam system itself, which needs to be revised! It`s completely overblown with tones of unrealistic and irrelevant ridiculous stuff! For instance, questions regarding the number of fire extinguisher, windshield wipers required regarding MTOM, reaction time of birds during T/O run, Loran C ("state-of-the-art" nav-equipment in the age of GPS), not to mention the countless questions which actually foster the already criticized "rote learning" system (e.g. memorizing keywords, figures, frequencies, distances , what-if question = increase/decrease or decrease/increase or increase/increase or ....).
Speaking of overblown system (ECQB), which in turn supports "rote learning" without gaining a "working understanding" of the matter. It might be worth thinking about cutting down the number of subjects. EASA ATP exams currently consist of 14 main subjects, actually 16 because AGK (Aircraft General Knowledge) can be subdivided into 3 main subjects (Engines, Airframe, Electrics). In my opinion that's simply too many different subjects, and the outcome is meanwhile well known = poor knowledge. That's what especially the airlines are complaining about when screening prospective junior FOs. The current system rather produces the "jack of all trades, but master of none" type of student/pilot, instead of the knowledgeable and confident pilot.
If you talk about this to experts, like instructors and even examiners, the general consensus is negative. They say the initial idea about JAA (today EASA) was good, to standardize aviation and crew licensing in Europe but the implementation was/is a catastrophe! I like to call it, a shining textbook example of a failed concept.
I'd suggest to restructure the theoretical syllabus in close cooperation with the front-line aviation experts, like instructor, examiners as well as airline training captains. Cut it down and make it more realistic, think about incorporating "scenario-based-training" type questions.
But to be frank, I don't believe that things are ever going to take a change for the "better" with EASA and the system itself. Because, if changes would be made like suggested above, it would be too much FAA/US-type style and that's exactly what EASA doesn't want to happen!
On the other hand I must clearly say, my hopes that things will take a change for the better suddenly vanished into thin air as I read the following statement(s):
the conclusion was that the new questions being added to the ECQB would be written in a way that would test the application of knowledge....such as requiring the insertion of a word or a number in response to a question, as is already done in Germany (on another note, the intention is, at some stage, to reduce the number of multi-choice responses to three).
How long will it take EASA to finally realize that the issue won't be solved by continuously adding new questions? The problem is the testing/exam system itself, which needs to be revised! It`s completely overblown with tones of unrealistic and irrelevant ridiculous stuff! For instance, questions regarding the number of fire extinguisher, windshield wipers required regarding MTOM, reaction time of birds during T/O run, Loran C ("state-of-the-art" nav-equipment in the age of GPS), not to mention the countless questions which actually foster the already criticized "rote learning" system (e.g. memorizing keywords, figures, frequencies, distances , what-if question = increase/decrease or decrease/increase or increase/increase or ....).
Speaking of overblown system (ECQB), which in turn supports "rote learning" without gaining a "working understanding" of the matter. It might be worth thinking about cutting down the number of subjects. EASA ATP exams currently consist of 14 main subjects, actually 16 because AGK (Aircraft General Knowledge) can be subdivided into 3 main subjects (Engines, Airframe, Electrics). In my opinion that's simply too many different subjects, and the outcome is meanwhile well known = poor knowledge. That's what especially the airlines are complaining about when screening prospective junior FOs. The current system rather produces the "jack of all trades, but master of none" type of student/pilot, instead of the knowledgeable and confident pilot.
If you talk about this to experts, like instructors and even examiners, the general consensus is negative. They say the initial idea about JAA (today EASA) was good, to standardize aviation and crew licensing in Europe but the implementation was/is a catastrophe! I like to call it, a shining textbook example of a failed concept.
I'd suggest to restructure the theoretical syllabus in close cooperation with the front-line aviation experts, like instructor, examiners as well as airline training captains. Cut it down and make it more realistic, think about incorporating "scenario-based-training" type questions.
But to be frank, I don't believe that things are ever going to take a change for the "better" with EASA and the system itself. Because, if changes would be made like suggested above, it would be too much FAA/US-type style and that's exactly what EASA doesn't want to happen!
Last edited by Transsonic2000; 9th May 2015 at 02:27.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: -
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But to be frank, I don't believe that things are ever going to take a change for the "better" with EASA and the system itself. Because, if changes would be made like suggested above, it would be too much FAA/US-type style and that's exactly what EASA doesn't want to happen!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question! I personally think it's also a "battle" between the system(s), initiated by the JAA (EASA) to keep peolpe from going to the US for flight training, to protect and support domestic (European) flight schools.
Last edited by Transsonic2000; 9th May 2015 at 02:48.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
The entire ATPL theory exam concept is a farce, not just in Europe but right across the world.
I defy you to find me ONE SINGLE airline pilot with, say, minimum of 5 years practical experience post flying school, who can remember a bloody thing about what they learned in their ATPL ground school, or doesn't roll their eyes when the subject is mentioned.
I would limit the extent of ground school training to how to correctly read and understand a weather and NOTAM package and how to understand - really understand - standard IFR comms, and then go for much more in depth practical ground school on the type rating class for the actual aircraft they're going to fly.
Oh and I'd also include several sessions in a radar control room watching and observing how things are done, and a compulsory month of working in a hangar sweeping floors and making cups of tea and talking / asking dumb questions / having after work beers with the engineers.
I defy you to find me ONE SINGLE airline pilot with, say, minimum of 5 years practical experience post flying school, who can remember a bloody thing about what they learned in their ATPL ground school, or doesn't roll their eyes when the subject is mentioned.
I would limit the extent of ground school training to how to correctly read and understand a weather and NOTAM package and how to understand - really understand - standard IFR comms, and then go for much more in depth practical ground school on the type rating class for the actual aircraft they're going to fly.
Oh and I'd also include several sessions in a radar control room watching and observing how things are done, and a compulsory month of working in a hangar sweeping floors and making cups of tea and talking / asking dumb questions / having after work beers with the engineers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
"But to be frank, I don't believe that things are ever going to take a change for the "better" with EASA and the system itself."
Then why were there 24 non-EASA people in the meeting? If there were no interest in change, they wouldn't have been there - and been paid expenses!
"Because, if changes would be made like suggested above, it would be too much FAA/US-type style and that's exactly what EASA doesn't want to happen!"
Well, that simply didn't come up in the discussion. Both the KLM rep and myself brought up the Canadian system, and there were several comparisons to the FAA system from all around, especially from an independent UK IR examiner.
More questions are being added because the current ones are not suited to the final anticipated product. As LOs are deleted, so will the associated questions. Aside from that, there are many areas that do not have questions at all, so the gaps are being filled in. This includes LOs, BTW - some of those will be new as well.
Then why were there 24 non-EASA people in the meeting? If there were no interest in change, they wouldn't have been there - and been paid expenses!
"Because, if changes would be made like suggested above, it would be too much FAA/US-type style and that's exactly what EASA doesn't want to happen!"
Well, that simply didn't come up in the discussion. Both the KLM rep and myself brought up the Canadian system, and there were several comparisons to the FAA system from all around, especially from an independent UK IR examiner.
More questions are being added because the current ones are not suited to the final anticipated product. As LOs are deleted, so will the associated questions. Aside from that, there are many areas that do not have questions at all, so the gaps are being filled in. This includes LOs, BTW - some of those will be new as well.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South somewhere
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practical Teaching
As part of my Air Law and Comms teaching, I conduct visits to ATC. While there we split into 2 groups, 1 does local (Tower) the other does area (RADAR room). My local ATC are totally onside and enthusiastic and therefore willing to discuss all aspects and explain what goes on, what problems they face, the importance of good communication, English language. What service they offer, how it works.
Whilst there, the students see the airfield layout, markings, signage, lighting and signals. A 2 hour visit paints a picture that even 10 hours of classroom work cannot reproduce.
For AGK, Mass and Balance, PofF, time spent in the hangar is valuable and covers a wide variety of lessons. In my opinion, more productive than CBT.
Even a visit to the local Air Museum as there are a variety of exhibits that are pertinent to training.
It all builds practical understanding and some enthusiasm for what they are learning and is a change of scenery from the daily 8-4 classroom sessions.
Teaching is not just a matter of passing on factual information, it is passing on knowledge, knowledge that will be useful to future pilots.
In my opinion, there is too much historical stuff in the syllabus and we need to move with the times. Yes there is a place for some historical, but we need to concentrate on what is relevant.
I did a course in IT a while ago and the examination system was electronic but what is known as "adaptive testing". This involves a Question bank that has differing values for questions. A student is asked a question of average value, if he answers correctly, then a more difficult question is asked and so on. If answered wrong, a lower value question is asked. An algorithm works out the scoring and the end result is a valid representation of the candidates knowledge. In theory the candidate will never achieve 100% but a level of knowledge is ascertained. The more difficult questions are diagnostic / delve deeper into the theory knowledge, the easier questions tend to be more factual. By passing more theory questions the student achieves a higher mark. It takes quite a system to set up, with each question being given a numerical value but as I've experienced, it is achievable. It also means that students don't get the same questions and are less likely to be able to succeed through rote learning or cheating.
Whilst there, the students see the airfield layout, markings, signage, lighting and signals. A 2 hour visit paints a picture that even 10 hours of classroom work cannot reproduce.
For AGK, Mass and Balance, PofF, time spent in the hangar is valuable and covers a wide variety of lessons. In my opinion, more productive than CBT.
Even a visit to the local Air Museum as there are a variety of exhibits that are pertinent to training.
It all builds practical understanding and some enthusiasm for what they are learning and is a change of scenery from the daily 8-4 classroom sessions.
Teaching is not just a matter of passing on factual information, it is passing on knowledge, knowledge that will be useful to future pilots.
In my opinion, there is too much historical stuff in the syllabus and we need to move with the times. Yes there is a place for some historical, but we need to concentrate on what is relevant.
I did a course in IT a while ago and the examination system was electronic but what is known as "adaptive testing". This involves a Question bank that has differing values for questions. A student is asked a question of average value, if he answers correctly, then a more difficult question is asked and so on. If answered wrong, a lower value question is asked. An algorithm works out the scoring and the end result is a valid representation of the candidates knowledge. In theory the candidate will never achieve 100% but a level of knowledge is ascertained. The more difficult questions are diagnostic / delve deeper into the theory knowledge, the easier questions tend to be more factual. By passing more theory questions the student achieves a higher mark. It takes quite a system to set up, with each question being given a numerical value but as I've experienced, it is achievable. It also means that students don't get the same questions and are less likely to be able to succeed through rote learning or cheating.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as I already mentioned earlier, I find it quite remarkable that EASA is finally realizing that the current syllabus isn't working out as expected.
Let me tell you, about two weeks ago I sat the majority of the EASA ATP exams and passed! But if I'd have to retake them today, I probably wouldn't pass them again, without prior revision! This is only two weeks ago and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one! This is a clear indication that the current EASA concept isn't working! It must be changed/revised substantially!
I mean you can turn pretty much any subject into "rocket-sciences" and thats exactly what JAA (today EASA) did to the syllabus here in Europe! You can kill yourself with theory and thats what's happening here in Europe, in my opinion.
I'm a FAA pilot myself, as well as a flight instructor. I enjoyed flying and teaching in the Sates very much and I don't want to miss this experience by any means! One part of being an instructor was to make flying and the associated learning a positive experience for the student, this way people learn best and most of all retain the learned stuff. Here in Europe apparently the opposite is the case, learning for the ATP exams is often a dull and frustrating experience. This has been confirmed by many people I've been talking to.
As I said before, in my opinion it's a "battle" of the system. EASA trying to show the FAA (US), our system is better, our standards are higher, we are smarter - which is simply ridiculous and obviously the opposite is the case.
Let me tell you, about two weeks ago I sat the majority of the EASA ATP exams and passed! But if I'd have to retake them today, I probably wouldn't pass them again, without prior revision! This is only two weeks ago and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one! This is a clear indication that the current EASA concept isn't working! It must be changed/revised substantially!
I mean you can turn pretty much any subject into "rocket-sciences" and thats exactly what JAA (today EASA) did to the syllabus here in Europe! You can kill yourself with theory and thats what's happening here in Europe, in my opinion.
I'm a FAA pilot myself, as well as a flight instructor. I enjoyed flying and teaching in the Sates very much and I don't want to miss this experience by any means! One part of being an instructor was to make flying and the associated learning a positive experience for the student, this way people learn best and most of all retain the learned stuff. Here in Europe apparently the opposite is the case, learning for the ATP exams is often a dull and frustrating experience. This has been confirmed by many people I've been talking to.
As I said before, in my opinion it's a "battle" of the system. EASA trying to show the FAA (US), our system is better, our standards are higher, we are smarter - which is simply ridiculous and obviously the opposite is the case.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laudable aims, let's see how the reality pans out. My initial comments:
1. "the conclusion was that the new questions being added to the ECQB would be written in a way that would test the application of knowledge." - they are going to have to be very careful here that such questions also meet the LOs.
2. "(The LOs will get) a major overhaul, starting with a "quick fix" so that new questions are not written in areas that will later be redundant". - again, as you comment paco, if they 'quick fix' the LOs by removing topics they also need remove existing questions covered by those topics.
3. Please can we have a timetable for these changes so that we know exactly when changes to the LOs become effective and exactly when the various question banks change? Bet you they foul this up given that despite assurances question banks across Europe are still not standardised. Yes LBA, I'm looking at you.
They could have discouraged rote learning from the very beginning by not writing questions that were so obtuse or badly written that you can only answer them if you have seen them before. EASA and the JAA before it have a long history of saying the right things then failing to deliver because of lack of funds and low quality of execution. I have to say that I agree with Transonic and Luke that the required syllabus should be much shorter and much more targetted to real life ops. My first candidate for the bin would be the stability section of Principles of Flight followed rapidly by grid navigation.
1. "the conclusion was that the new questions being added to the ECQB would be written in a way that would test the application of knowledge." - they are going to have to be very careful here that such questions also meet the LOs.
2. "(The LOs will get) a major overhaul, starting with a "quick fix" so that new questions are not written in areas that will later be redundant". - again, as you comment paco, if they 'quick fix' the LOs by removing topics they also need remove existing questions covered by those topics.
3. Please can we have a timetable for these changes so that we know exactly when changes to the LOs become effective and exactly when the various question banks change? Bet you they foul this up given that despite assurances question banks across Europe are still not standardised. Yes LBA, I'm looking at you.
They could have discouraged rote learning from the very beginning by not writing questions that were so obtuse or badly written that you can only answer them if you have seen them before. EASA and the JAA before it have a long history of saying the right things then failing to deliver because of lack of funds and low quality of execution. I have to say that I agree with Transonic and Luke that the required syllabus should be much shorter and much more targetted to real life ops. My first candidate for the bin would be the stability section of Principles of Flight followed rapidly by grid navigation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
....and separation standards, stuff from obscure management books, compass swinging.....
I gather the timetable is roughly two years, as you say, assuming everyone does their bit. I will keep you posted.
I gather the timetable is roughly two years, as you say, assuming everyone does their bit. I will keep you posted.
