It is EASA's fault, but not necessarily because they are trying to make money, it is more to do with a desperate search for 'more questions' without operating proper quality control processes. Take a recent Performance exam, for example. Under the LO 032 03 02 01 "Describe the effect of engine failure on take-off climb performance" is a question asking where VXSE and VYSE sit in relation to VX and VY respectively. My objections:
1. How could anyone - ATO or student - reasonably predict that question would derive from that LO? A reasonable attempt to satisfy the LO would be to describe loss of thrust, increase of drag and subsequent poorer climb performance after an engine failure.
2. The correct answer to the question is type specific and depends on the exact shape of the power available and power required curves all-engine and engine out, at least in relation to VYSE. The examiner had taken his info from a generic graph in the Nordian notes which did not appreciate this, nor did he/she.
3. What use is this information? The only thing a Class B pilot is interested in is what speed VYSE is, the blue line speed, and it is painted on the ASI for that purpose. The relationship between VXSE and VX, and even VYSE and VY is immaterial.
Now we can teach as 'fact' that VYSE is less than VS, but it isn't true, and it leads to the possibility that some future examiner will take our notes as a reference for this 'fact'. Extraordinary.
The reality is that these 'off-the-wall' questions just drive candidates to question banks, not from them