Do we do things backwards?
We've had plenty of threads in the past about how much of the content of the ATPL exams is not relevant to real life flying. So, just for a change, let's talk about that small part of the syllabus that is relevant!
I've just been reading a thread in the ATC forum, where mention was made of an 800m RVR minimum for a single-pilot aircraft making an instrument approach, or something like that (I got lost in all the numbers!) Now, I'm sure that must have cropped up somewhere in Air Law. But it's a year, near enough, since I did my Air Law exam. I haven't done my IR in that time, and I probably won't do it for another year or so. The small amount of instrument flying I have done, on my IMC rating, certainly hasn't taken me into anything like 800m RVR - I value my life enough to know that I'm not capable of handling that, so I've had no need to refer to what my Air Law books say on the subject. So what's my point?
Well, we all know that we loose knowledge if we don't use it. And I've lost lots of knowlege relating to instrument flying. This is just one example - I'm sure if I got out my Air Law and other manuals I'd soon find lots more. Wouldn't it make much more sense to do those exams which relate to instrument flying whilst doing the IR? That way, I could actually make use of the knowledge - and, once we start using the knowledge, it's more likely to stay with us.
Does anyone know the logic behind finishing the exams up to 3 years before doing the relevant ratings? PPL exams aren't valid for that long. Has the idea of doing the exams with the rating (a bit like the FAA system) been tried, or even thought about, and rejected? Or have we just had the current system thrown at us without any thought about the consequences?
Your thoughts, please, ladies and gentlemen!
FFF
----------------