Originally Posted by
speedrestriction
Hmmmmm, I managed a 93% average without the question bank albeit a few years ago. When things start going wrong in an aircraft for real unfortunately they don't come in the form of multiple choice questions. Better to understand the theory and get 90% than memorise the question bank and get 95%. If you have properly applied yourself and failed eight subjects then you might have to reconsider your chosen path. If you haven't applied yourself then get off PPruNe and into those books!
I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.
My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...
Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.
Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.