Bless my phone’s spellcheck
Don't you just hate that characteristic like poison ?
The question is based around a 737/A320 type aircraft.
That's understood and quite fine. However, for the purpose of the theory work, it really doesn't matter if we were to use a Vanguard for the sample aircraft. Or a Grand Commander. Or whatever.
In such an aircraft the most you’d be expected to do on the load sheet is to work out where to sign it.
Hopefully your comment is tongue in cheek. Else one could only caution that such an attitude would not fare well at court following a mishap ....
With Airbus now completing the fly smart rollout the days of doing that are also in the past. Take off calculations are just punching stuff into an iPad.
Were we to progress along that line of reasoning, then we would be better served dispensing with the theory work altogether and doing it the way one sees with many folks on PCs .. give it a run and figure it all out on the fly. Not the best if the JB kit fails in flight and you are left with only mandraulic alternatives ....
the returns from these exams are diminishing every day.
The returns should be the acquisition of potentially useful knowledge but I guess we must be from different philosophical backgrounds ?
Learning in extreme detail how the inner workings of gyroscopic instruments work… Why?! It’s just wasted knowledge which is dumped the second the exam is gone.
Perhaps your training was far more maintainer based than what we have over in the Antipodes for the pilot folk. The typical pilot systems work is relatively trivial, geared very much toward block diagrams which have only the vaguest relationship to the real kit and only intended to provide the pilot with a notional overview of what is what ...
the six months full time groundschool could be stripped right down to 3 or 4 exams you could do in two or three months.
With the caveat that I haven't seen your requirements, I would opine that a sensible ground school program PPL through ATPL can be done and dusted in, perhaps, 3-4 months fulltime.
a total waste of time as it is as relevant to your day to day operating of the aircraft as a strong grasp of Swahili would be,
I can only opine that your comment is one which gives me great sadness. In long gone days, the pilot sought excellence rather than mediocrity. I guess the name Gann would mean naught to you ? There are numerous others who were in the same class of pilot.
The old greybeards who trained me were from the same mould. I guess I can only suggest that their wisdom in respect of attitude has rubbed off somewhat. I don't suggest that we need to know how to build the aircraft (as pilots) but it really can be useful to know just a little bit more than "light comes on, press button A".
I suppose that we will just have to continue to agree to disagree. I can only hope that you aren't faced with really out of left field problems during your career. Sioux City, the Hudson, and so on, come to mind. Knowing a bit more than the bare bones stuff might not get you home on the day ... but it has a significantly higher correlation than coming from a technically impoverished background. Just the way it is, I'm afraid.