Are PPL ground examinations too easy?

[DRJAD]

Though not a flying instructor (I'm an instructor/tutor/examiner in other disciplines), I have become interested to canvass the instructor community's views on this subject.

There have been several threads on the Private Flying forum recently about both which examinations are 'hardest', and also seeking help with specific aspects of particular examinations. Imparting assistance by mutual help is, of course, well established in other fields of experiential learning. The views expressed, however, seem to indicate that some students find the PPL ground subjects and/or the nature of the examinations difficult. Yet the experience of others suggests that the same subjects and examinations, in the depth required for a pass in the PPL syllabus, are almost trivially easy, requiring only a cursory reading of the study material, coupled with some background knowledge of physics, and an immediate (successful) attempt at the examination.

My questions really are:

i. is there a consensus in the FI community that the PPL ground examinations are pitched approximately correctly as they are, or,

ii. is there a case for a revision of the syllabus to tighten the requirements of knowledge, and to issue more of a challenge to the student?

iii. Is the multiple-choice format best for the examinations themselves, or would it be advantageous to demand evidence, by means of a written paper, that the candidate is capable of developing and expressing a logical sequence of thought in respect of the examination subject?

The impending, I gather, issue of revised examination papers seems an opportune moment to pose these questions. (Though, no doubt, the subject has been aired here before. Forgive me if that is the case.)

[YYZ]

Multiple choice is also used to test pilots at ATPL level, are you suggesting that this is also insufficient & should also include a written paper?
Most people I know find the ATPLs very difficult indeed so I do not believe its the format of the exams that should be in question but if anything, the content. But ill leave that debate to Pruners with more experience.
:O

[DRJAD]

Not being an expert in the application of examination techniques in this field, I did not know that the ATPL examinations were also MCQ.

I suspect, though, that the whole gamut of ATPL training would ensure that the assessment of communication and logical thinking abilities would be covered by other aspects of that training, etc.. I have in mind the selection procedures, ongoing assessment (I assume this takes place), MCC, etc..

PPL training does not have, I believe, any such formal provision for checking that a candidate can communicate effectively with others, can draw appropriate logical inferences, can restrict those inferences when data are incomplete or susceptible of reduced accuracy from normal, can judge whether the extent of restriction applied makes the inference suitable or unsuitable for inclusion in a logical sequence of inferences, etc.. This is, I believe, and I entirely praise the skill of the people doing it, assessed during training by their FI and finally by their examiner. My suspicion, though, is that a PPL candidate, who is not perforce surrounded by the world of professional aviation from which, almost by osmosis, he/she will absorb an appropriate way of thinking, is not given, formally, a set of techniques for making such thinking second nature. I wonder whether the nature and content of the examinations tests, sufficiently objectively, whether a candidate has such habits of mind.

As the correspondence on the Private Flying forum demonstrates, there are many for whom such thinking is, indeed, part of their personality. There may be others for whom this is not part of their mental make up. Does the system of PPL examinations and training sufficiently at present cater for detecting the difference and for compensating for the potential shortfall? Would such a formal recognition be desirable?

[lady in red]

Although not directly on the point of PPL examinations, I believe that the pre-entry test for a Flying instructor course should definitely include a written essay type examination paper, as this would give clear evidence of a candidate's ability to communicate and to construct a logical argument. This is tested nowhere in the training of pilots and given the lack requirement for any level of educational attainment, is probably a reason why some people find the examinations "difficult". If a minimum academic requirement was also a pre-requisite it would probably help to weed out some of the candidates who struggle.

[homeguard]

The current exams if anything miss the point in some aspects and thoroughly cover what the PPL NEEDS to know in others.

The PPL exams are beyond comparison with the new DVLC drivers exams and tests. The PPL student takes 7 different papers. The spread of questions appear on the one hand to test a required knowledge of what they must know and in other respects appear to sample, presumably to check that they have read the books from cover to cover and have attended sufficient briefings.

One of the papers is called Human Performance and Limitations which includes questions on decision making singularly and shared. The flying syllabus and training standards demand considerable instruction in 'decision making'. Predictable emergencies for instance require mandatory training, such as; Stall/Spin Awareness, Forced Landings, aborted take off, Engine Failures after take off etc. Radio Telephony Communications are a major part of this and are tested thoroughly both in theory and practice.
At a recent Instructor seminar we received two challenging lectures by a lecturer in Psychology.

The point in regard to the PPL student, is when to draw the line.

[BEagle]

Agree woleheartedly with lady in red on this. But I would go further and require that such essays would be written with pen and paper under examination conditions - not on a PC with spellcheckers and grammar checkers available!

Currently the 'new' PPL exams allegedly contain many errors which the Authority knows about - and is 'hoping' to be able to amend in time for the 29 Feb 04 deadline.....:rolleyes:

[BlueLine]

i. is there a consensus in the FI community that the PPL ground examinations are pitched approximately correctly as they are, or,
---------------------------
The average FI is probably not familiar with the precise content of the exams as they don't see the papers. The questions are in some cases too difficult for PPL level students - this can be witnessed by instructors scratching their heads when a candidate gets a question wrong, and the instructor cannot work out the correct answer so confers with others.
----------------------------------
ii. is there a case for a revision of the syllabus to tighten the requirements of knowledge, and to issue more of a challenge to the student?

There is nothing wrong with the syllabus, the problem is that essential and desireable knowledge is not clearly defined. The questions are in many cases achademic with little practical value. The purpose of the written exams is to ensure that a potential pilot has sufficient knowledge to operate an aeroplane safely. Understanding the origins of the Chicargo convention, or knowing the gear ratio of a camshaft is of no use when you meet another aircraft head on!
---------------------------------------
iii. Is the multiple-choice format best for the examinations themselves, or would it be advantageous to demand evidence, by means of a written paper, that the candidate is capable of developing and expressing a logical sequence of thought in respect of the examination subject?

It is now the standard format like it or not. Essay style questions pose enormous marking problems that could not be addressed with the current examination system. If the questions are suitably written they should be quite satisfactory.

-----------------------------------------------------
The impending, I gather, issue of revised examination papers seems an opportune moment to pose these questions. (Though, no doubt, the subject has been aired here before. Forgive me if that is the case.)

The CAA used to produce a new set of papers every year, this ceased prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL on the assumption that "ground examiners" would no longer be a requirement to write exam papers.

So far the JAA have not even commenced compiling PPL papers so there is a void. Changing the papers every 3 years appears to be stretching the resources to the limit. Of course if the JAA ever do write PPL papers anything that went before will appear wonderful by comparison.

[aces low]

Without being too specific. The Air Law exam is too focussed on the bureacracy, too hard for the first exam and is irrelevant once passed. The Human Performance exam is too easy (and probably irrelevant for PPL level). As an instructor, the biggest grief of my life (weather excepted) is students failing to keep up their written exams in parallel with their flying. I.e. ready to go solo but air law not passed. Ready for Nav Solo but R/T or Met or Nav not passed.

Of all of these the Air LAw is the worst, hardest and most irrelevant (with exception of rules of the air and licence privileges). Airspace should be covered as part of nav, and all the w@nky elements of JAR/ICAO interantional flights dumped all together. It is a real tragedy to see highly motivated students drifting away during their study for air law...knowing they cannot go solo without it (at our school). I know some clubs do not have this restriction...but are ultimately playing with fire if things go tits up on a solo.

[alphaalpha]

Air Law is the main problem.

I did the CAA PPL exams about seven years ago and have subsequently done the IMC and IR exams, but I am not an instructor.

All of the PPL exams can be passed, I suggest, by a fairly superficial reading of the book, some hours of good ground briefing and an intensive bit of work using the confusers.

However, passing the exam and understanding the subject is not the same thing. This is particularly true of PPL air law. Like most students, it was the first exam I took. I did it after a couple of months flying, when I knew very little about aviation in general and not much about air law in particular and when the hundreds of aviation acronyms were a source of confusion in themselves. I learned to pass the exam, rather than learned about air law.

Subject areas like VMC minima as opposed to licence privileges; special VFR; ATC services in different classes of airspace; documents to be carried; what is a release to service etc etc were learned to pass the exam but definitely not understood.

Some areas, I understood by the time I had finished PPL training; some areas, I only understood when I had finished by IR training. Some areas I don't fully understand now.

The danger is that, having passed the air law exam, the PPL student assumes he understands air law and never returns to the subject. Except for the gifted one or two students, he doesn't.

So, there is a case for a basic air law test covering only relevant parts of the syllabus to be taken pre-solo, simply administered by the instructor, perhaps. This would be followed by a second, more comprehensive, part and should be taken only after the GFT, when the aspiring PPL has had more experience and exposure to wider training and will therefore actually understand much of the problem topics which I listed above.

The fact that PPLs are confused by air law and the lack of real understanding is evident in many of the private flying threads and other flying forums. I say that, not holier than thou, but as a simple fact drawn from my own experience.

AA.

[FlyingForFun]

On the subject of Air Law (since that's the direction this thread seems to be going), you only need to look in the Private Flying forum to see how often the same subjects come up. IFR vs IMC is the main one, especially how it relates to night flying. The only reason that I understand this myself is because I read about it on PPRuNe, long after I'd done my Air Law exam.

Question: is there really any benefit in students doing Air Law before going solo? Surely if all you're going to do is fly a circuit, you don't need to understand about airspace (you'll stay in the ATZ) or the legal minima (your instructor won't let you go solo if the weather is even looking like getting close to minima) or the right-hand rule for line features (except maybe in the circuit at Elstree...!)?

FFF
--------------

[Whirlybird]

As I see it, the problem is both the questions in the exams themselves, plus the fact that students generally study for them primarily alone by self-study. As has been pointed out, many of the questions are irrelevant. But when studying alone, and very new to flying, it's often not possible to see the relevance to actual flying. I spent an hour or so recently with a student who couldn't see the point of Human Performance, just going through the book and relating some of the theory to actual flying...it gave him a new perception of the whole thing. If you make the exams harder, we'll lose people. They are already hard enough for people without a technical or scientific background...but they may need stuff explained if they're to learn what it means and not just how to pass the exam.

So...perhaps a short compulsory groundschool element? With instructors paid for it of course! I know it would add to the cost, but I'm tired of cost always being the deciding element here. I would have loved someone to explain the mysteries of helicopter aerodynamics to me; no-one did, and I struggled with it up to my CPL and beyond. And I do have a scientific background, of sorts anyway.

Multiple choice is fine. Otherwise the exams will depend on a student's ability to express himself well on paper, which is not really relevant. And it works the other way round too. I discovered at university that I had a knack of being able to know a little about a subject and sound like an expert; it comes of being able to write well, and people mistake my ability fto express myself on paper for real knowledge. For that reason, I personally hate multiple choice!!! I can't fool anyone. :( But, joking part, we need questions that are clear and comprehensible, not ones where instructors can't work out the answer because it's not clear what the question means.

FFF,

There was a case once, described fairly recently in Pilot magazine, where a student went out for a first solo, then someone crashed on the runway, and she eventually had to fly to another airfield to land!!! It's rare, and full marks to her for coping, because I suspect some students wouldn't. However, EVERYONE should realise that going out to do circuits may not be just that...accidents happen, weather can change suddenly and unexpectedly, or whatever. So I think that at the very least first solo students should know about Air Law, but the relevant stuff, not all the stuff about...dunno, I've forgotten what was irrelevant because I never use it.:)

[DRJAD]

Many thanks to all those who have replied: as I stated at the beginning, I have formed an interest in this subject as applied to the PPL examinations, and the question of how instructors and examiners discern a worthwhile candidate. (Allied to this is how much trust do other pilots in general repose in a new pilot trained under the present regime.)

Additionally, some of the replies have started me thinking along the lines of where congruence between flying training may exist with one of my professional activities.

Could it not be the case that a candidate who cannot express himself well, and logically, on paper is unlikely to be able effectively to communicate in a stressful situation? These are the kind of criteria I apply in one of my professional tasks, when recruiting, for example. (An ill-expressed, misspelt, ungrammatical CV would not receive a second look.) I only ask in order to stimulate further debate, since I am not sure how far using that activity as a metaphor for flying training is valid.

Perhaps the idea of a second Air Law examination, at a later stage of training (or perhaps as part of the IMCR ground requirements) should be an essay-type arguing an appropriate response to a hypothetical difficult or dangerous situation?

[Field In Sight]

Another reason for doing at least one exam before going solo (Air Law is as suitable as any) is that the student is already 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through their PPL.

This means that at least they get a bit of a kick up the A%se and get some of the studying done.

I did my PPL in the US in 4 weeks a couple of years ago and out of a group of 5 of us 3 failed to complete the course because they had underestimated the amount of work they needed to do to pass the exams. There flying and communicating skills was up to skill test standard.

Also, I have to disagree with the following:

Could it not be the case that a candidate who cannot express himself well, and logically, on paper is unlikely to be able effectively to communicate in a stressful situation? These are the kind of criteria I apply in one of my professional tasks, when recruiting, for example. (An ill-expressed, misspelt, ungrammatical CV would not receive a second look.) I only ask in order to stimulate further debate, since I am not sure how far using that activity as a metaphor for flying training is valid.

Flying requires a multitude of skills to do it well. Communication being just one of them.


However, I know that when I did my FIC and had to explain/teach subjects you then realise whether you understand a subject or not (usually not :} ).

FIS.

[DFC]

Do we teach students to pass an exam?

or

Do we teach students what they need to know and some of what is nice to know and use the exam as confirmation that a certain minimum standard has been acheived?

If a student fails an exam then the instructor has failed.

I have come across some instructors who take the exam questions and limit their teaching to those areas. :(

Why don't instructors or schools have internal exams? They could be more realistic in their coverage of the topics involved and could include local rules and procedures which must be known prior to first solo.

Yes for many the PPL is not related in any way to professional flying and some use this as an excuse for drumming down standards and making things as easy as possible. Thankfuly we don't have the same attitude to private driving.

Has anyone ever heard "I am only a private driver, I don't need the same standard of driving as that professional taxi driver" - hope not.

Regards,

DFC

[DRJAD]

Thank you for those views.

One item which has emerged is the use of MCQs. Personally, I believe that they encourage a 'guess' mentality. To avoid this the questions and the possible answers, together, need very carefully to be phrased. Are they, at present?

A further issue relates to the use of "Confusers". (I must point out here that I have not seen any of these publications.) Notwithstanding that, I have heard it expressed that the use of these aids may encourage an element of learning by rote, purely to pass the examination. As a non-user of these items, I cannot comment personally on that, but am interested in the views of others. (Of course, used as aids to check knowledge already gained from conventional sources, and not as primary study materials, such batteries of questions and answers, if that is what they are, are, no doubt, useful and helpful.)

[Field In Sight]

Has anyone ever heard "I am only a private driver, I don't need the same standard of driving as that professional taxi driver" - hope not.
Unfortunately not a good example of professionalism.

You can include "White Van" drivers in the same skill level as taxi drivers.

Oh and sales reps!

Professional conduct doesn't seem to apply in the same way on terra firma. :confused:

Unfortunately I've got to brave the ground level airways from London to Manchester in about 2 hrs

FIS

[Northern Highflyer]

Whether the exams are easy or hard depends on what they are trying to prove. Are they there purely to test a candidates' knowledge on flying issues, or is it fair to say they also serve the purpose of testing the ability to learn, digest and understand information ?

If the exams are to achieve the former then there is a lot of pointless information that has to be learnt. From my current experience this is the same for ATPL subjects too. My Brother recently got me thinking on how well (or important it is) we need to understand the subject matter when he asked how I had done in one of my ATPL tests. I said I had got 86% which was a pass. He then said "well I won't fly with you then because not knowing the other 14% may kill us".

Although he was joking, I thought he had a point. If it is all so relevant then surely nothing less than 100% would be acceptable ?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

It is abundantly clear to me what should be done.

The CAA should produce a Computer Based Training course for the PPL theory.

For anyone who has seen the CBT for the ATPLs as produced by Oxford or Bristol the quality of what can be done is self evident.

It would be childs play to have progress tests and examinations conducted on a flying schools own PC under the auspices of the CFI/CGI. The syllabus itself could be issued to each student at the start of course for less than the current cost of a full set of Trevor Thoms + Confuser + RT manual.

The Syllabus could easily cover the RT course material thus eliminating the need for seperately approved instructors/examiners for that endorsement.

The CAA would be readily able to update CBT content to keep it inline with the latest rules.

It would probably turn into a profit stream in the longer run. I know it would put a few people/books out of business but the benefits would be worth it. Namely a community of PPL graduates who have all gone through a standardised, thorough groundschool, at their own pace and in a detailed interactive fashion.

Why have a system whereby often reluctant FI's are asked often without payment to provide random theory briefs to students with little more than a whiteboard some dried up pens and a small model aircraft to assist? The same brief, conducted in a studio by an expert presenter, benefitting from multimedia, would surely be far superior? Bung it on a CD ROM and its good for the next 20 years worth of UK PPL students...

Each student could be required to purchase a copy from the CAA.

WWW

[whitingiom]

Hi guys

I'm a recent PPL student.

I have been around exams for much of my life:

GCSE, A Level, Degree, Chartered accountancy, Investment Management, Yachtmaster (yes boats!).

How much work is really involved?

I've read the air law & Meteorolgy by Thoms, are there any practice exams or 'past papers' to look at?

Thanks

Jon

[DRJAD]

WWW,

Ah, yes. That looks like the answer to me.

Since there are so many differing opinions as to the perceived difficulty or otherwise of the examinations on the part of the candidates, some degree of formalization of training seems ideal.

[Noggin]

(An ill-expressed, misspelt, ungrammatical CV would not receive a second look.)

Is this a case of judging a book by its cover? Unless you recruit editors for the New Oxford dictionary!

The most fundamental problem in aviation theoretical training is that nobody has ever done a Training Analysis, without that we will continue to roam arround in the dark. There are many possble solutions however, as there are virtually no resources available to put them into practice, not much is likely to change.

Even the founders of the new NPPL have failed to produce appropriate examinations to test their candidates, who sit the same, much maligned, Air Law exam.

[BEagle]

Another story I heard recently was that some cheating little $ods had been caught texting answer strings to eachother after some PPL exam papers had been compromised. Not mine, I hasten to add!

I now ban mobile communications devices of any form from the exam room....

I cannot believe quite how low such people will stoop.

[BigEndBob]

I always believed the Air Law exam questions are too hard and irrelavent for students at such an early stage in training.
Pre solo the student only requires the basics of rules of the air, aerodromes signals and collision avoidance.

Personally i would like to see simpler more safety related questions even if the pass rate req. was 100% for Air Law. Even if we had stock questions with known answers, what matters is that we all know the knowledge to fly safely.
Students don't have time to devote hours to studying and remembering information to pass a test. Knowing where to find the information 12 months from now is what is important.

The questions need only be put simply, with no tricks or twists.
Other air law questions could be included as appropriate to the Nav. Met. etc. exams.
But hey, we are only instructors and examiners..what do we know?

And for those that have had a life time of passing exams there are many who haven't sat an exam for 30 or more years.

[aztruck]

A word on the US system. The question bank is published along with several crammers which will virtually guarantee a written pass.
BUT...the ppl Candidate is orally quizzed by his Examiner for up to 4 hours before his checkride. If he fails the oral he doesnt even get to fly, its a fail and "come back next week", along with a word in the shell like appendage of the CFI responsible.
The Ground Instruction in the US by CFI's is charged at the same rate as flight instruction i.e. 1 hour flight plus 1 hour's brief=2 hours pay for the Instructor.
So USA = cheap aeroplanes and expensive instruction...UK= expensive aeroplanes and instructors on the breadline.