must do some analysis of the posts from people who found Air Law "...irrelevant to real flying..."
Rustle, you've quoted me out of context there. I didn't mention Air Law.
I find it hard to believe the exams are sufficient when I can get high marks and yet not know basic information about the subject - for example, despite 100% in the IMC exam I would have great difficulty in planning an IFR flight from Shoreham to Exeter. Something wrong there, don't you think?
Met is another subject that I know very little about, and i'm saved from my lack of knowledge mainly by the fact that i'm not flying in marginal weather anyway. If I had to understand the subject well enough to make go/no-go decisions in marginal VFR ... well, I couldn't. And Human Factors - this is such an important part of so many accidents, yet the exam is so simplistic that you could give it to a halfway-intelligent non-pilot and they would pass without looking at a book.
I think that the PPL and IMC flight-tests should have an FAA-style oral examination. The examiner could ask what he likes about the subjects that you're supposed to understand and you have to convince him that you know your stuff - and if you cannot, the test is over before it starts. Could I do that? I hope so, but I'm not sure - and that doesn't really square with my exam marks, does it?