i. is there a consensus in the FI community that the PPL ground examinations are pitched approximately correctly as they are, or,
---------------------------
The average FI is probably not familiar with the precise content of the exams as they don't see the papers. The questions are in some cases too difficult for PPL level students - this can be witnessed by instructors scratching their heads when a candidate gets a question wrong, and the instructor cannot work out the correct answer so confers with others.
----------------------------------
ii. is there a case for a revision of the syllabus to tighten the requirements of knowledge, and to issue more of a challenge to the student?
There is nothing wrong with the syllabus, the problem is that essential and desireable knowledge is not clearly defined. The questions are in many cases achademic with little practical value. The purpose of the written exams is to ensure that a potential pilot has sufficient knowledge to operate an aeroplane safely. Understanding the origins of the Chicargo convention, or knowing the gear ratio of a camshaft is of no use when you meet another aircraft head on!
---------------------------------------
iii. Is the multiple-choice format best for the examinations themselves, or would it be advantageous to demand evidence, by means of a written paper, that the candidate is capable of developing and expressing a logical sequence of thought in respect of the examination subject?
It is now the standard format like it or not. Essay style questions pose enormous marking problems that could not be addressed with the current examination system. If the questions are suitably written they should be quite satisfactory.
-----------------------------------------------------
The impending, I gather, issue of revised examination papers seems an opportune moment to pose these questions. (Though, no doubt, the subject has been aired here before. Forgive me if that is the case.)
The CAA used to produce a new set of papers every year, this ceased prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL on the assumption that "ground examiners" would no longer be a requirement to write exam papers.
So far the JAA have not even commenced compiling PPL papers so there is a void. Changing the papers every 3 years appears to be stretching the resources to the limit. Of course if the JAA ever do write PPL papers anything that went before will appear wonderful by comparison.