SuperTed,
You appear to be asking three questions:
ARE THE LEARNING OBJECTIVES VALID?
The short answer is they probably are not.
The objective training process is based on the concept of identifying what exactly the students needs to be able to do when qualified, then training him/her to do it. The first part of the process is a training needs analysis, which identifies the main tasks that make up the job for which the training is intended. These tasks are then broken down into sub tasks, which are again broken down into sub-sub tasks. This process is repeated until the "any fool can do that" stage has been reached. Each of the tasks, sub task and sub-sub tasks are then analysed to identify the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required to achieve them. A list of learning objectives is then constructed to provide the necessary knowledge skills and attitudes. Exam questions are then constructed to test the achievement of these objectives.
By now, you have probably concluded that no such training needs analysis has ever been conducted for the JAR ATPL. In fact, the sum total of full training needs analyses carried out in the entire field of human endeavour, can probably be counted on the fingers of one foot. Many organisations claim to do them but the temptation to take shortcuts is irresistible.
So the JAR ATPL learning objectives are little more than an expansion of those used for the old national systems. However, the introduction of JAR has at least resulted in an improvement in the clarity of the objectives. For some subjects the old CAA lists comprising less than a half page of A4, now cover ten or twenty pages. This doesn't necessarily mean that more material is covered, but the material is more clearly defined. As for the question of whether the material is relevant……Well if you ever find yourself at 40000 ft needing to communicate with your aircraft systems in binary code, you would probably be wiser to spend your time cancelling future newspaper and milk deliveries!
ARE THE EXAMS BASED ON THE LEARNING OBJECTIVES?
Well most of the examiners would (usually) say that they (generally) are. Many students and instructors would however disagree. It is certainly true that in the early days the FTOs interpreted the objectives much more narrowly than the examiners. This inevitably led to a good many surprises in the early exams. But the system has now been in place for a couple of years and the FTOs have lots of feedback questions and a pretty good idea of what is required. There will of course always be a few surprises as examiners push the envelope just that little bit further as they build up (pad out) the question bank.
HOW CAN YOU HOPE TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS FOR WHICH THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CORRECT ANSWER?
There is nothing inherently wrong in giving a number of answers of varying degrees of accuracy. This is in fact a good way of ensuring that students really do know their subjects.
For example if a questions ask for the relationship between Vx and Vy, the options might include the following:
a. Vx is greater than Vy.
b. Vx is less than Vy.
c. Vx is equal to Vy.
d. Vx is less than or equal to Vy.
Option a is only true if you take Vx for a jet and Vy for a prop so we can (probably) discount that one. Option b is true at all altitudes below the absolute ceiling and option c is true at the absolute ceiling. But option d is correct at all altitudes. This question tests not only knowledge of the basic relationship between Vx and Vy but also how they vary with altitude.
In reality, however some of the questions have been far more dubious. One in the Performance papers about a year ago took the form of:
How do Vx and Vy vary with increasing altitude?
a. Both increase.
b. Both decrease.
c. Vx increases and Vy decreases.
d. Vx decreases and Vy increases.
In this case, none of the options are correct. Vx (in terms of CAS) remains constant, while Vy decreases until they are equal at the absolute ceiling.
This question (or one very much like it) appeared in a number of exams and led to a great deal of discussion (heated argument) between POF and Performance instructors and (even more heated argument) between FTOs and the CAA. The matter was discussed at one of the regular meetings between examiners and FTOs and it soon became apparent that none of those present new the true answer. So, the CAA announced that such questions would be withdrawn until the matter was resolved. The FTOs advised students accordingly.
In the next set of examinations the Performance paper included 4 questions along the lines of:
How do Vx and Vy vary with changes in mass?
How do Vx and Vy vary with changes in ambient temperature?
The students of course objected, but the examiners pointed out (quite correctly) that these questions were valid. This of course did little to placate the students.
The examiners eventually concluded that because the rate of decrease in Vy is very small (only about I Kt per 4000 ft) it is okay to say that it does not vary with altitude. This led to the quite remarkable situation that in Performance Vx and Xy both remain constant with changing altitude, while in POF Vx is less than Vy at low level, but equal to Vy at the absolute ceiling.
WATCH THIS SPACE IN FUTURE EXAMS!!!!!
[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Keith Williams. ]</p>