Originally Posted by
blind pew
Would disagree..whilst land as soon as possible would be nice there are times when it’s hours away as happened over the North Pole when our system gave two tracks 30 degrees apart.
Gen Nav and Polar Stereographic charts for the win... but had you remembered from ATPL theory knowledge or stuff from your specific training for polar ops?
Another in depth knowledge of engineering armed me for an argument with lazy engineers who didn’t want to examine the air conditioning turbine which had set off a engine vibration warning after take off..I elected to fly at fl250 and continue to base on one system (max altitude legally allowed).
I assume you got the FL250 allowed on one system from the AFM or non-normal checklists? The argument with the engineers was on the ground after the flight? So good to be able to win the argument, but not an immediate flight safety factor? So knowing it was useful, but not critical?
The in-depth meteorology requirements certainly saved diversions and influenced safety when it was obvious (to me) that the locals had got it wrong. Whilst it was half a century ago I’m still learning micro meteorology as I paraglide..even yesterday after hiking to a take off and deciding that the gust factor wasn’t safe.
I heartily agree that meteorology is one of the only sections of the ATPL theory exams where the whole course is bloody useful!
Then there is those who I’ve flown with who didn’t have the knowledge and held in a circuit breaker not understanding that it’s there to protect the wiring and not the device attached at the end.
Which kind of proves my point that it is in many ways a memorization and hoop jumping exercise. I taught the above fact to my elementary school students and its part of the elementary school basic electronics syllabus. The fact that a practicing commercial (I assume?) pilot didn't know it is frankly worrying and exposes the flaw of the ATPL exams, which is that you can get through them without learning very much at all.
After all it’s a confidence factor for the passengers as well..they don’t want uneducated thickos locked in up front.
We find ourselves in agreement! I think a large amount of the ATPL Theory is just "proving you're not thick" and "showing you can learn things" so that there is some confidence that pilots are competent. But as you pointed out, it seems that it's possible to get into the cockpit without knowing elementary electronics, so you have to start asking what value the ATPL theory exams are, if they are not just hoop jumping!