EASA ATPL Theory needs reform?!
Why oh why oh why the "compulsory brush up" classroom crap too?
I have to work for a living, so not only do I have to cram studying for 14 exam loads of crap into my life somehow, I'm also expected to take numerous weeks off work not earning, travelling half way down the country and having to find accommodation etc to attend classroom studies. Then I have to traipse somewhere else to sit the exams (which are finally done on a computer, like under the FAA system) on certain dates.
I was fortunate enough to study full-time in the States a few years ago, and passed the equivalent CPL/IR exams out there for the FAA certificates. It probably took about 2-3 weeks of hard graft around the flight training to pass the writtens. More importantly, I still remember the theory, and a while ago tried an online mock exam, which I passed with a high score. Surprisingly, the FAA theory has helped to some extent with the EASA crap, but far too much of it is overly complicated and lacks relevance. The "meat and bones" technical side I've definitely got a head start on, and it's just the (mostly) nonsense about HP&L and most of the Air Law and Ops that are a pain.
To anyone who wants to argue that the FAA written tests are "easier", I'd agree. They are more accessible, cheaper, more relevant etc and have a pass mark of 70% out of best of 3 answers. Then you have an oral exam as part of your skills test... No amount of learning answers by rote will help you with this, and this is a much better test of someone's knowledge in my opinion.
How many newly minted IR holders in the UK/Europe would happily hire a light single and file IFR on a trip? How many would actually know how to do it and have practiced it during training?