Selfin
thank you for your contribution.
Have some respect for his desire to remain anonymous
Not quite sure where you're coming from with that one, as I haven't insisted on that point. I thought I might have known him, hence why I asked. But respectfully, I don't think that's any of your business anyway.
First off the ATPL question-bank ceremonies do not effectively inculcate the depth of theoretical knowledge mandated under the JAR learning objectives
I entirely agree. However, that does not excuse one from attempting to comply with those objectives as closely as possible. Having said that, with regards specifically to multi-engine flight ISTR my ATPL course material covered the subject in reasonable detail.
asymmetric flight at the ATPL TKC level is unlikely to be so remembered
...which is why one would do a little revision before going on a ME rating course? Same applies to ATPL notes as regards IFR flight, btw.
as to expunge a comprehensive revision during an ME Class Rating course
The ME theory part is of course a compulsory part of the course and is welcome, although there shouldn't be any surprises there if one has done his homework before starting the course.
The good thing about revision is that it doesn't cost you any money so that's one thing you can do as much as you like, which is why I couldn't understand why you would have people showing up for the course who had no idea how an OBI works. Since a pass in IR or ATPL theory is a prerequisite for attending the course, I do not think that is the time or the place to teach you what you should already know (regardless of how inadequate the examination process might be).
Have you read the comments above about students being given no in-flight ASYM practice?
Yes. Have you witnessed any such occurrences? I haven't and generally I don't comment on hearsay.
The issue raised by polohippo, which you LH2 have ignored, is one of his colleague having been childishly mocked by an Aerodynamics instructor following a failure to demonstrate a level of non-existent practical skill.
If I have ignored it, why did I then dedicate three paragraphs to it, even though I just said I don't generally comment on hearsay?
I am not sure if you have read my post and paid any attention to it before replying, but if you have, you will notice that I introduced that as an example of how second-hand information can be unreliable. I mentioned that the first session is purely sim familiarisation (as I presume you know) and therefore he wasn't being asked to demonstrate anything, it's by and large simply one hour of coming to grips with the bloody thing (I found it a bit over-sensitive) and having fun. If the instructor decides to fail an engine on you during this session, I think that's actually quite good, as it gives you an idea what will happen and what the result will be if you don't know your stuff. I would expect that to be a "ah, so that's why I'm doing this course!" moment. The other poster didn't say his colleague was "mocked", simply that the instructor started laughing--I don't know about you, but I found some crashes (in the sim) to be spectacularly funny and I remember myself and my partner having had a few good laughs (not that we crashed much
).
You see? Let's say for argument's sake, this guy had no idea what he was sitting in the sim for (his fault, it's explained to you, it's written in the syllabus, and if you still don't know you would ask), so he totally misinterprets the situation he is in, gets his pride hurt, goes and tells his mate, his mate posts in PPruNe, somebody else changes "laughed" to "childishly mocked"... and that's how rumours start.
But, since neither you or I or the previous poster have been there, I shall refrain from making any more remarks on it. And of course neither should my comments be taken to reflect on the protagonists of this anecdote, I was just using the story to illustrate a point.
All but one of the unfavourable criticisms in this thread directed towards Aerodynamics are, so far as my personal experience goes, valid and, more to the point, only the tip of the iceberg.
Ok, so you
have been there, so how about you relate your own experience and impressions for the benefit of the original poster, since that's what he asked? When did you visit, what did you do there, what were you looking for, how were your expectations (un)met? what you thought of the place, did you like it, did you not like it, etc.? That sort of information might be useful to the OP, don't you agree?
Aerodyanmics had gone the extra mile in providing, if anything, instrument and equipment failure scenarios too frequently
Through sheer stupidity once I ended up in thick soup over an unfamiliar part of Germany in a 172 with a busted suction pump (no AI and no DI) and I made it out of it with no personnel or material loss (well, my pride hurt quite a bit) so yes, the partial panel stuff they teach you actually works
Anyhow, no real axe to grind, I just think that much (not necessarily all) of the criticism levelled here is unfair as it's based on a combination of second-hand information, prejudice, and ignorance. I read through it and I know in hindsight that it wouldn't have helped me form an accurate impression if I had read it when I was at that stage in my training. Not that I would have relied on anything written here anyway, mind you.