This may cause them to influence CASA into not changing them.
That may be the case although I suspect not.
In ancient times we used to have post exam review panel meetings between Industry theory trainers and the then DCA theory examiner. I can recall attending a few of these, I guess in the late 70s (?), when I was tied up with Noel Lamont's organisation at Essendon. Indeed, they also involved occasional reviews of the exam question banks with robust discussion along the lines of endeavouring to weed out silly questions. More usefully, for the students, the actual examinations were made available for study use. These would be worked by trainers and provided to the students as part of their practice workup for subsequent exams. The student could purchase various solutions to get a sound idea of the ways one might usefully approach the sorts of questions which might be posed. It certainly wasn't a case of learning how to answer a "standard" question as the examiners had enough nouse to tweak question styles so that a reasonable level of understanding was necessary to solve them. The main value lay in giving an idea of the sorts of question styles which the examiner might pose. I had students who were comparatively brilliant ranging to comparatively slow - the former, generally, had little problem, the latter just needed to knuckle down and hit the books until it eventually sunk in. Indeed, one of my favourite students was in the latter category - he struggled for quite a while to get his passes and had concurrent financial difficulties/pressures along the way. He eventually ended up, quite successfully, in senior airline training and checking appointments and had a very successful career.
By comparison, I think the present "secret exam business" approach is counterproductive although it may well simplify the Regulator's workload requirements.
As I recall, many of the present sorts of criticism leveled at the exam questions were common back then as well. The poor old examiner just can't win - make the questions a bit searching or pointed and the muppets react, make them too simple and the purists likewise.
Right or wrong, I have a simple approach -
(a) the trainer must teach the ins and outs of the topic so that the student can understand the story and have sufficient competence and confidence to figure out solutions to problems.
(b) the student has to be brought up to a standard relating to speed and accuracy from which the exam pass is feasibly achievable. That involves drilling in speed and accuracy. If there be anything I might complain about, it is the time limit and pass mark constraints. Comparing this to the old university days, we had what was fondly referred to as the "zero shifting theorem". The philosophy was that the student cohorts, from year to year, were more or less similar in typical capability so, if the raw results varied markedly from the norm then, just perhaps, the problem lay with the exam rather than the cohort; ergo, the pass mark was flexible and, consistent with reasonable consideration, might vary a little to accommodate the situation. Pass rate was seen to be more relevant than pass mark
It doesn't fuss me what the exam question standard is - that is the Regulator's province. If the trainer has done a sound job, the student ought not to have too torrid a time achieving a pass even should the questions be rather more searching than last time. I really think the problem lies with those folks who want an easy ride and, when they don't get one, are vocal in their complaining.
Perhaps I'm just getting to be an olde pharte who is saddened by the pressure seen to dumb things down. Sure, as time goes by, some stuff becomes of decreasing relevance overall and falls into the category of historical oddities - sextants might be an example ? However, dumbing stuff down for dumbing down's sake can only be a foolish goal, in my simple view of life.