I think maths tests are a waste of time. Perhaps rule-of-thumb tests might be more appropriate.
I am not joking.
Rule of thumb tests assess a crew member's spacial perception of the dynamics of the environment in which they are operating.
An example is say a 260Kt descent in an A320 say. Where is the nominal TOD?
At 30,000 feet cruise altitude, this would be at 90Nm to touchdown.
(30,000/1,000 x 3) = 90 Nm
How long will it take? 90/260 * 60 = 1/3 * 60 = 20 mins
You then make some compensations for wind and other altitudes but basically you are somewhere where you think you are for a straight in approach.
Maybe a bit oversimplified. It's sort of like driving your car. You get a smoother ride if you know the road ahead has a lower speed limit. You will lift your foot off the accelerator earlier and watch your car's speed match the decreased speed limit on the sign. You feel good about that. But what you did was apply a rule of thumb; if my speed is this, I must take my foot off the accelerator here to get to that target. After a couple of times you get a set of rules together for curves, slopes and road conditions and you get it right everytime. That doesn't involve any maths and yet you have mastered the control of the vehicle.
Even so, we do these rule-of-thumb calculations frequently in our heads and check them against instrumentation on good days. We may even go home and play it out on graph paper and Jep charts. When was the last time you flew a truly stabilised approach where you have managed the energy of your big jet yourself and the machine is driving down the glideslope almost hands free? It's a good feeling isn't it?
So if we do that, why are we putting crews through complex maths tests???
Seems a waste of time.
