I'll take up the original thread:
Just wondered how much of the syllabus from the ATPL you have actually found useful and relevant to the 'real' world? As far as I can see the syllabus generally certainly is'nt there for practical application.
I've done both the JAR CPL-H, and recently the JAR IR-H theory, wich together qualifies as "frozen" ATPL.
I find a lot of the theory "irrelevant" for the purpose of practical use in the everyday for a pilot. Not everything, of course, but a lot of it.
My feeling was that a lot of the theory was "nice to know" and good to have as a "in-depth" understanding, but certainly not something one would rembember and use everyday.
And I feel a lot has been left out, which would be useful to get a more practical understanding of many of the subjects.
Met and FP & P are "practical" subjects who are mostly relevant, but when you read "Instrumentations", and they spend most of their time explaining how an instrument is buildt up, but almost nothing about actually USING them, I find that a bit strange.
It seems that part is left for the FTO's to teach you, and that is a fair idea, but then you need to be blessed with a good FTO. And that's not always the case (I know, my FTO for the CPL was crap...).
If they had printed the more practical theory also, it would be more standarised, I think. I'm thinking about actual use of instruments, IFR emergecies (instrument failures ect).
Airlaw is dull, and it's nothing to do with that. Just read!
Com is ok.
Radio Nav could be more practical.
Nav is a bit too fixed-wing oriented, but I guess we have to live with that.
AGK is based a lot on Boeing 737, and could be a bit more general, I think.
But a lot of it is ok.
One instructor told me that the US-approach was a lot more practical, and the JAR approach has become quite heavy on the theoretical side. He thougth a blend of those approaches maybe would be the best. I think he has a point, without having any US experience myself.