Originally Posted by
twinotterifr
Based on observation, i have noticed a theme when it comes to training in aviation courses, that everything seems to be condensed into a very short time frame. I recall basic flying training and the ATPL theory ground school was packed into a short period especially for integrated schools. The same is true for the systems ground school in TR, having given only a week or two to learn an extremely complex system architecture for a jet. I've watched military documentaries on fighter jets and their ground school is also extremely condensed, almost like a crash course. Is there any particular reasoning behind this? is this purely a commercial benefit (i.e for cost savings)? or perhaps intentionally designed to test the individual's ability to grasp large volumes of information within a specified time frame? (i.e a quality/trait test necessary for the profession). Wouldn't it be logical, especially for the military, to learn the required knowledge thoroughly for ensured understanding and also safety reasons? i've wondered about this for a long time and would love to know your thoughts especially from the experienced instructors in the learning department.
Having sat the ATPLs and talked with many professional pilots over the last few years, I'm of the opinion that a lot of this stuff is just to prove that you can jump through hoops. I'm not a flight instructor, but I was in academic research and then teaching for quite a while, so I can say with some confidence that every theory course I've been on and most that I have seen are useless from the standpoint of pedagogy. The only thing you can do with such a mass of information is memorize and grasp the most basic of broad outlines of a subject! To put another way, I boiled down all the important formulas, regulations, mnemonics, conversions and bullet points of information in the ATPL to roughly 80 pages. Of those 80 pages, in doing my CPL, ME/IR and MCC courses I probably referred again to half that...
And from the anecdotal points from practicing pilots, they're mostly useless from a professional practice standpoint as well. From my point of view of being a new CPL with fATPL, while I can see some use in some of the information I've been forced to learn, I fail to find practical applications for the vast amount of it. As a pilot, why do you need to intimately know details of aircraft engineering, electronics or systems that even the maintenance engineers or aircraft design leads don't? Of what practical, inflight, use is a great amount of the ATPL theory or type ratings mechanical systems knowledge? Will you be able to fix the aircraft by knowing it? In the heat of an emergency, will it be your recognition of the cockpit warnings, adherence to checklist procedures and perhaps a rudimentary knowledge of the system that has gone wrong that will get you out of trouble? Or will it be the in-depth knowledge of how a pump, servo-motor, or piece of electronics works? Everything I've been taught in practical training comes down to... when it goes wrong, land as quickly and safely as possible and let someone qualified fix it!