Written exams....

[WestWind1950]

... are they so easy?

Taken from one of the many Pink threads (hope the poster doesn't mind me quoting him here).....

The majority of people pass them first time. They really are not very difficult.

How many of you passed all your written exams on the first try? Are they really so easy? It'll be interesting to see how many of you are willing to out yourselves.... :E

I had to repeat all my writtens the first time around... that was 20 years ago and we only had 5 different ones. If you didn't pass at least 3, you repeated all... and at the time my German wasn't as good as today and the exams were only available in German (excuses, excuses ;) )

So tell me.... are they that easy or have many of you had to repeat them one or more times.... come on now, tell the truth :}

Westy

[Gertrude the Wombat]

How many of you passed all your written exams on the first try? I did. IIRC the pass mark was 70% at the time? - I remember thinking "if there are really people flying around who could only manage to get 70% on that exam then I hope they keep well out of my way".

Dunno what you had in Germany, but here in 1989 we had multiple choice questions many of which could be got right by common sense (and O level vectors and trig and other stuff you hadn't had to learn specially for flying), so to guess your way to 70% on the balance you'd need luck, but not outrageous luck.

[WestWind1950]

hi Gertrud,

here we had multiple-choice questions, too... but you had to get at least 75%. Between 75 and 85% you had an oral exam, meaning it wasn't enough to just memorize the answers but had to understand the questions. Obviously everyone tried to avoid going into that oral exam :uhoh:

Yes, some questions only needed common sense, but some, especially in air law, you could only try to memorize. Now, with JAR-FCL, you still need at least 75% but there's no oral exam (perhaps done at the skills test).

I didn't mind having not passed the first time... made me sit down and do some more study... which helped me to understand better...

Westy

[bluskis]

If I took the tests papers in German, I would probably have got 1%, and that for being able to spell my very Germanic name.

In my native language I must confess to never failing a paper, but the ease of passing depends on how much exam technique experience you have had, and what your non aviation qualifications are.

As the rules allow you more than one attempt, they obviously dont think failing first time disqualifies you from being a pilot

[Maxflyer]

Having not studied for many years I first felt daunted by the content of the PPL examination syllabus. Surprisingly I managed to pass all bar one at the first attempt. The one I failed was the aircraft technical. I thought this was one I would pass easily and therefore decided that I didn't need to study too hard for it...Big mistake. 60% no studying - 95% With revision.

Also have to admit I found myself getting back into the old study habits quite easily, made me feel young again!

[Evo]

How many of you passed all your written exams on the first try? Are they really so easy? It'll be interesting to see how many of you are willing to out yourselves...


I found them trivially easy. In eight papers (PPL + IMC), i got six questions wrong. Three were me being careless, three were things I didn't know. :O :8

Still, I find myself not knowing about many things I really should understand - so I'm not sure if the exams are too easy, or just irrelevant to real flying...

[Whirlybird]

I did the old pre-JAR exams in 1997/8, though I don't think there's a lot of difference. I passed all at the first attempt except RT. But I don't think they're all that easy. Sure, if you have a scientific background and/or have done at least A levels and possibly a degree, preferably recently, then they're not that big a deal. But I recently taught groundschool to a chap in his 50s who left school at 15 having never passed an exam in his life, and hadn't studied anything for over 30 years. He had no idea how to study, and very little confidence. Most of what I did was to help him with a study plan and assure him he could do it. But he really wasn't helped by the people who told him the exams were easy. Everyone's different, and there are a surprising number of people who are very intelligent, know lots about aviation, but seem to have ****** all in the way of knowledge of or empathy with a large proportion of their fellow human beings.

[IO540]

I think the exams are easy for someone who has an engineering / technical education and did well in it, and fairly hard otherwise.

A great deal of the stuff is irrelevant to flying, too. Either because nobody needs to know what year ICAO dates back to, or because things like the slide rule are a very bad way of doing the required computations.

A lot of the answers are also "wrong" in that they make sense in the context of particular Trevor Thom type terminology but someone who knows the subject from a non-PPL angle would have disagreed with the expected correct answer.

[Saab Dastard]

For what it's worth, I got all of mine (JAR PPL) first time. I got 100% in 2 or 3 of them :cool: :O

With the exception if Air Law I found them ridiculously easy. The aircraft technical was so easy I finished it in 15 minutes.

Of course, they weren't in German ;)

The only problem I had was leaving it so late doing the last few - I think I ended up doing 4 in 3 weeks - to stay within the 1 year validity! It was just the thought of having to redo Air Law for no good reason (laziness is not a good reason :p ) that made me finish them.

I agree with IO540 - if you have a background in technical stuff it makes it a lot easier. I'm a civil engineer working in IT with a lifelong love of aviation and some gliding experience behind me before I started my PPL. I also like cars and oily engines and stuff.

My anorak's in the boot...:O

SD

[J.A.F.O.]

I can tell you something for sure, they were a hell of a lot easier in 1986 than they are now. I took all of them (I think there were five) in the space of a fortnight without a problem. Don't remeber having to know when the Chicago Convention was or that CL=1/2 rho v2 S back then.

[WestWind1950]

me again....

Thanks for all the posts so far!

Whirly has a point... I was 34 when I took mine and was "only" a house wife and mother at the time. I had been out of school for at least 15 years, thus studying was a bit hard. Especially with the technical parts, any guy (or gal) that already knows lots about car mechanics, etc. has a natural advantage. Air law is difficult because a lot of it has no relation to "practical" flying... (who cares where the ICAO offices are located!).

An interesting point I've noticed (unless I missunderstood postings I have been reading here and elsewhere)....before and after JAR it was/is necessary in Germany to have ALL writtens accomplished before being able to fly solo cross country, especially the radio (RT). Isn't that true in other JAR, or non-JAR countries?

Westy

[rustle]

Note to self: must do some analysis of the posts from people who found Air Law "...irrelevant to real flying..." -v- questions about VFR/IFR, VMC/IMC, IMC-rating validation and usage, how do you complete a flight plan (and therefore how to use AIS properly) etc.

There was more to the Air Law syllabus than the date of the Chicago Convention :rolleyes:

I did mine pre-JAR. 75% required. All passed. Needed Air Law to do first solo plus needed Met. and Nav. to do QXC.

[DRJAD]

I'm with Evo (also passed all the PPL and IMC examinations first time), and could not, and still cannot, believe they were so easy. (Oh, and I might add that I know nothing of car mechanics, etc.: I merely drive the things and expect qualified mechanical practitioners to sort them out if they go wrong!)

Furthermore, I do not believe that MCQ really tests synthesis of argument and priority setting adequately. Surely these abilities, involved in producing a realistic course of action to solve a problem in real time, ought to be tested as much as memory and simple arithmetic?

At least one paper, essay based in order to give the candidate chance to express the sequence of their thought processes, and a judgment to be formed by the examiner, would surely not be too onerous.

[Evo]

must do some analysis of the posts from people who found Air Law "...irrelevant to real flying..."


Rustle, you've quoted me out of context there. I didn't mention Air Law.

I find it hard to believe the exams are sufficient when I can get high marks and yet not know basic information about the subject - for example, despite 100% in the IMC exam I would have great difficulty in planning an IFR flight from Shoreham to Exeter. Something wrong there, don't you think?

Met is another subject that I know very little about, and i'm saved from my lack of knowledge mainly by the fact that i'm not flying in marginal weather anyway. If I had to understand the subject well enough to make go/no-go decisions in marginal VFR ... well, I couldn't. And Human Factors - this is such an important part of so many accidents, yet the exam is so simplistic that you could give it to a halfway-intelligent non-pilot and they would pass without looking at a book.

I think that the PPL and IMC flight-tests should have an FAA-style oral examination. The examiner could ask what he likes about the subjects that you're supposed to understand and you have to convince him that you know your stuff - and if you cannot, the test is over before it starts. Could I do that? I hope so, but I'm not sure - and that doesn't really square with my exam marks, does it?

[rustle]

Evo - I thought I was paraphrasing rather than quoting you - sorry mate, wasn't really aimed at anyone in particular :O

Maybe it is more to do with attitude/expectations than exam content...

e.g. If you go to the exam expecting to be asked anything from the entire syllabus then presumably one would study everything relevant to that - and would breeze through the exam but also be able to do the other, real-flying-relevant things, as well: Like flight plan completion...

[IO540]

Rustle

The PPL exams are just that, exams, same as O-level, college, degree exams the purpose is to sit an exam and not to show you know anything practically useful :O

I know this is a favourite topic of mine but one doesn't learn stuff in the PPL that's really useful for going to places. No doubt, because most PPL holders don't actually go anywhere by the time they let it lapse. (And many people do point out that they just like to fly around locally without going anywhere - perfectly legitimate).

If a large % of new PPL holders suddenly started doing 200 mile x/c flights, incl. going abroad, and navigated the way they've been taught in the PPL, I GUARANTEE all hell would break loose and the whole training setup would need to be overhauled.

[Whirlybird]

Let's get this in perspective folks. The PPL is a LICENCE TO LEARN. It gives you the BASICS of flying, the BASIC knowledge needed in order to fly safely and legally, and hopefully the basics of airmanship, decision-making and so on. You then have a lifetime in which to learn the rest. And if it were to be otherwise, it would take even longer than it does now.

Instead of having harder exams - and they're tough on people who never got beyond "O" levels, haven't studied for years, and are not technically minded, believe me - we need to impress on new PPLs how little they know. Some are dangerously over-confident...I know I was, for a short while, until I scared myself. We also need to make it easier for them to learn more...by flying with more experienced pilots, or going on courses, perhaps.

Our society is exam obsessed. It's only one way of learning, and IMHO not a very good one. We need to make sure people realise the need to learn in ALL ways - by studying, and reading AAIB reports, and flying, and learning from other people, and asking questions, and practising; and above all, knowing themselves and their limitations. That last one is tough. :eek:

[Deano777]

I also passed all my exams at the first attempt, and like somebody else posted a few at 100%, I didnt find any of them really taxing and I dont class myself as particularly brainy, I left school at 16 with modest qualifications as when I woke up to the fact that i needed to get my arse in gear it was kinda too late, I had to study for 2 years for my current job and take 12 exams which I passed ok and I did do an Open University Maths course the year before I started my PPL so this helped me get back into it, Im just not looking forward to the ATPLs :(


Wise and true words spoken there Whirly.

D.

[WestWind1950]

h Whirly!

again I have to agree with you ;)

Some of the clubs and organisations over here offer review seminars, etc. Guess who go to them? The pilots that don't need them! They're the ones that keep up-to-date all the time and do lots of flying.
The one's that really SHOULD attend and really NEED it just don't bother! Pity, really.... but I guess they were never told that a PPL is a licence to learn..... :ugh:

Westy

[DRJAD]

Yes, I agree with much of the content of previous points.

My concern is that I believe nothing in the present examination regime tests that a candidate can take a number of real time inputs, construct a mental model of the situation, establish sensible priorities, and take appropriate action - all in real time. I am, though, entirely willing to concede that I may have misunderstood interlinked subtleties of the question setting between subjects: those professional educators on the forum will, no doubt, have informed views on this. My point of view about these examinations is based in my experience of practical examinations in another sphere of activity.

A viva voce might do so, though it would still be subject to any inherent variation between dispersed examiners. An essay-type paper could do so perhaps as well, or, if marked centrally, by a moderated group of examiners, perhaps better.

Either way, a viva voce , or a written paper, could well serve a need to establish that prospective pilots can communicate adequately.

[IO540]

Whirly

You're right, the new PPL is a license to learn; the issue however is that one learns just about enough to do nothing really useful. This would be perfectly fine if the average school offered an environment where the PPL holder can progress. But most don't.

Unless of course you want to spend more money with them, on a NQ or the IMCR, but again the moment you get those you are back on your own.

But it's all been said before...

[DRJAD]

One idea I've been toying with suggesting at my local club is to promote a mentoring scheme. New PPLs would be mentored by experienced pilots (there would need to be some minimal administration to make it work), and that mentoring should perhaps be sufficiently rigorous to detect when a new PPL needs the attention of an instructor for, say, confidence building.

Mentoring works well in other fields of endeavour, why not that of the PPL?

[bluskis]

drjd

Your post on 'real time mental models' was I am afraid too obtuse to be understood , certainly by me.

Your post on mentoring really means flying with more experienced pilots, and that is always a good idea.

I am assuming you are talking about qualified PPL holders who should be able to learn from both the good flying of their mentor and be able to silently note the poorer points of their mentor's performance,while starting out on the lifetime task of adding new skills and confidence to their flying,which is precisely the point at which the PPL course is intended to pass the PPL holder on to the rest of their flying life.

[WestWind1950]

DRJAD,

I think I understand what you mean by mentoring... something like the "big brother" system (and I don't me Orwell's..). experienced pilots take a "beginner" under their wing, so to speak ;) , taking them along on a cross country, flying with them when they fly somewhere themselves and giving them tips. They idea is not bad and worth a try... if you get enough volunteers.....

Also clubs could arrange refresher classes to discuss new regs or just review old ... but again, those that need it usually don't attend.. why? fear of embarrassing themselves? maybe....

Some of the stories I have heard at the bar when pilots are "hangar flying" are sometimes quite scary..... :\

Westy

[Charlie Zulu]

I haven't had to resit any aviation exam... yet.

All six CAA PPL exams were passed first time, but Aircraft Technical was passed very marginally with 72% if I remember correctly (the pass mark back then was 70%).

Since then the IMC rating exam was passed, but only because half way through I noticed the true airspeed changed ten knots so I had to redo most of my nav plans etc...

The FAA Commercial and Instrument exams had 90% and 95% respectively and the oral tests were passed first time. By far the toughest exam I have had to pass is the FAA Instrument Oral Exam.

Now I've just starting my JAA ATPL's (the module one of the course is being delivered within the next week hopefully), I'll probably be resitting a few of them, but of course I'll be going out with the intention of passing all of them first time (my luck is *probably* about to run out though).

IO540,

I was quite lucky where I gained my PPL. They would pair people up and suggest new routes and places to visit once one gained their PPL as well as general support to us newbies and instilled it in us that the PPL was just a licence to learn and build upon (not necessarily new ratings).

Unfortunately the afformentioned club closed down a couple of years ago and at the club I am now a member of, most PPL's are now really left to their own devices unless they spend more money on other ratings as you suggest.

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.

[DRJAD]

Bluskis, sorry to become abstruse in my attempt to produce unambiguity!

Yes, I agree with you and Westwind1950 in the essence of such a scheme. Almost exactly as you describe, though I think there could be a strong element of one to one discussion with a mentor both prior to and after a flight. (I.e. an informal briefing and debriefing discussion.) The idea of it which I have at present is that:

i) a club's or a school's CFI would attempt to match new PPL holders with amenable experienced PPL holders. E.g. would attempt not to match a relatively unassertive individual with someone with an over-confident manner, for that could lead to a diminution of confidence in the new PPL holder.

ii) the mentoring process is a one to one relationship, so that matters can be raised in discussion (after each party had achieved some confidence in the other) which the new PPL holder may feel diffident about broaching in public.

Of course, to fly together is extremely valuable, and is to be encouraged. Ante- and post-flight discussion, though, is, to my mind, also valuable in that issues may be raised independent of the pressure of aviating.

The mentor, also, would need to be alert to issues which require the expert help of an instructor, and encourage the new PPL holder to seek that help.

I do not propose such a scheme as a panacea for all problems, nor do I suggest it should be compulsory. It is merely offered as an idea which may assist new PPL holders to continue the learning process, and which some clubs and schools may find useful to adopt.

[Pink_aviator]

HI Westy
(wasn't sure wether I was allowed to drop in and post , as I do not know what "HI-JACKING " A post is .)

Any way ,wanted to add, that I never really went in to passing exams seriuosly at school ( a bit rebellious back the .teehee )

But because I really wanted to learn to fly , I knew this was time to really STUDY , my stuff.

AND STUDY I did . Obbsessivly to the cost of other things .

But I did , (HAVE ,JUST ) passed them all now, but I did fail a couple first time around , but as I was lax on exam technique ,
I failed on stupid mistakes ,,that if I had have checked them properly , would have made a big difference .

BUT I learnt from it , .

I actually found MET the hardest for me .

(intersting thread by the way .)

THE PINKSTER

[WestWind1950]

good morning Pinkster,

actually you didn't "hi-jack" the thread but brought it back "on topic" ;)

The subject of "mentoring" should perhaps be continued in a new thread. The biggest problem I see, is that many experienced pilots that are not also instructors may NOT be really qualified for mentoring.... but who decides that? They may be experienced, but that doesn't mean they do things "right" (whatever that is....) or have the proper training for mentoring. There are reasons for instrutors to have training in educational theorie.
For example: I once knew a very experienced pilot who took a young kid, 12 years old at the time, under his wing. In spite of the fact that this kid was much too young, this pilot taught the kid how to "fly" his plane (Pa28 Arrow) ... he took the kid on many trips, letting the kid always sit in the right seat and fly.... I believe he let the kid even land!
Well, when the kid was finally old enough to start learning glider flying, he was "ruined". He thought he knew it all, but much he had learned was "wrong". He did manage to get his glider licence, if I remember right, but he no longer flies and never got his single-engine.... :( pity.. he may have become a good pilot one day....
Of course, I don't want to generalise but just add some points to think about....

Westy

[DRJAD]

Yes, that's why the suggestion is that CFIs match mentee with mentor. It is the CFI in a training establishment, is it not, who should monitor suitability and efficacy of training?

The main point, however, seems to me to try to create an examination regime which really tests logical thought, synthesis of argument from relevant data, rejecting those data which are irrelevant, and cogent decisions for future action. These, along with the ability to communicate in what is, I understand, the international language of aviation, namely English.

[IO540]

DRJAD / CZ

Great idea, mentoring, but one has to get this past the old grey-haired CFI whose view is likely to be "a student should fly only with a PROPER INSTRUCTOR othewise he/she might pick up bad habits".

A less charitable attitude on the school's part is that they want the student to donate every penny that he has to the school, and not to some other pilot's PPL cost sharing scheme :O Given that many students are skint and can only just scrape together the money for each lesson, this is an understandable "business attitude" - hugely damaging to the PPL scene in the long run of course.

There are lots more things which a school could do to advance things; e.g. buy a decent plane and then sell off shares in it to keen pilots. This is even less likely to happen, for obvious reasons...

[DRJAD]

IO540,

I quite see the point - and it had worried me too in the context of a universal mentoring scheme.

However, it does seem to me that even if a few clubs/schools adopted such a scheme then it would/might have overall benefits to the GA community at large. It also may result in those schools/clubs being seen as in advance of others in the provision of 'aftercare' to their flying graduates!

Really, I had not thought of it as a cost-sharing scheme for existing PPLs:ooh:

Of course there are very likely to be other ways to provide encouragement and 'aftercare', I'd hope that the GA training industry would continue to explore ways to enhance their activities. (There are some clubs/schools, I know, who do provide schemes for experiential flying opportunities for both students and 'graduates' of their training facilities.)

[IO540]

DRJAD

I think the overall objective is to make it obvious to the PPL student that flying is not only fun (this often isn't at all obvious during training, when you sweat your way around the circuit!) but that flying "for real", i.e. using modern nav methods, is a good deal easier than one would expect from one's training experience.

On the assumption that every instructor is perfect, a student can achieve this without picking up bad habits, by flying with an instructor. The instructor will probably really enjoy being taken to France and Spain and you name it, or just along the road to Compton Abbas for a beer, but it's going to cost the student an awful lot of money!

Money is the bottom line, and one has to sell any such scheme to the school.

[DRJAD]

IO540,

Absolutely, as far as the school is concerned.

I'd would have hoped that the benefit for the school is that, if supported and encouraged, new PPL holders would fly more frequently, for longer flights, and stay in the activity for longer. Thus, they would generate more income for their host organization, but would also, hopefully, enjoy their flying more. After all, one hears about the high attrition rate post PPL.

I must admit, I do not have a motivation problem to keep flying, but am trying to propose ideas which may assist with lowering the attrition rate.

So far as the principal burden of the thread is concerned, I do share the concerns of others that the PPL examination regime as presently constituted seems rather easy. My own solution would be to make the examinations more rigorous and more academic, but I know that others find this an unacceptable route. One wonders whether the CAA/JAA have other alterations in the pipeline to succeed the recent alterations. Is it not also time to follow the FAA into an automated question setting regime for those examinations which are suitable for MCQs? Perhaps that would allow for a much expanded repertoire of examination questions. One would have thought most training organizations now have access to online facilities.

[IO540]

DRJAD

I agree but sadly I don't see what benefit it is to the school to have PPLs continuing to fly.

Of course the greater benefit would be that after some years the active PPL population would increase, but I don't think this would bring more people into the activity unless there was considerable modernisation. That would bring in more people who can afford to fly, and I think the relevance of the exams would become moot.

[DRJAD]

IO540,

Yes, and we're getting into the whole area of the aging UK GA fleet, and its presentation to the consumer, I guess.

My experience, and I readily admit it is not long enough nor broad enough to admit of generalization, is that many people post PPL, who I guess may be candidates for attrition, would continue to hire from the school or club at which they learnt. That way there would, surely, be some advantage to the school?

Additionally, if encouraged to enjoy their flying, and not to allow it to lapse, they may well be encouraged to take further training.

Anyway, these are just options, as you say, the ideal is for recent PPLs to be encouraged to enjoy their flying and to continue to learn.

[WestWind1950]

hello DRJAD,

.....would continue to hire from the school or club at which they learnt.

I think that is already the standard. Once you get your PPL you usually stay with the same club or school you're familiar with, the planes you know, the people and airfield you know. Most new PPL's can't afford their own plane, so what alternative do they have?

The mentoring would only really be possible in a club and not a commercial outfit I think. What most pilots I know try to do is plan flights together, one flying and paying the first stretch, the other flying the return. That way each pays only that part he actually flies and manages to go to new places the other may already know. And you learn by watching the other....

In my old glider club we tried to assign pilots to new students, sort of a mentor I guess, to show them how the club works, etc. Worked pretty well.... usually.

The electronic writtens are gaining ground over here.....

Westy

[DRJAD]

Hallo Westy,

Yes, your experience in your gliding club is the way it could go. I agree it may only be easy in a club setting, but I believe certain schools (i.e. commercial organizations) are doing it de facto here, although not necessarily calling it a mentoring scheme.

Ref. the collaborating, or, perhaps, 'peer to peer mentoring'!, I'm a fairly low hours {150 or so} PPL/IMC and very happy to do this when asked - cost share, etc.. I usually find, as well, that actually I'm quite happy to share costs and not do any of the actual flying, if other, perhaps more assertive, individuals want to do more than their share.

Interesting to note the take-up of the electronic writtens there: I think there could be advantages to such a scheme here.

[Papa Bravo Delta]

Hi everyone.

I am newly registered here but having benn reading the forums for a while.

Going back to original point of the thread I am a little worried.

Statements such as:

"... are they so easy?"

"The majority of people pass them first time. They really are not very difficult."

"I remember thinking if there are really people flying around who could only manage to get 70% on that exam then I hope they keep well out of my way".

I have just started my PPL and am struggling with the ground exams. I haven't done any for real yet but am only getting between 50% and 60% on my practice papers.

I work for a certain Air Traffic Services provider and have been associated with ATC both operationally and technically for 12 years now. I have an engineering degree and am chartered. I have spent many years working with motorcycle and car engines and also fly model aeroplanes. I would have thought that I might have been able to do better in those areas at least... but no!!!

So has anyone any recommendations?

What worries me is that rather than taking the attitude of trying to learn I am now thinking along the lines of how the hell am I going to pass the exams which is not the best way surely!!!

Any thoughts would be most helpful!!!

[rustle]

Hi Papa Bravo Delta :)

I haven't done any for real yet but am only getting between 50% and 60% on my practice papers.

When you discuss the ones you struggled-on with your instructor(s) do you then understand where you went wrong or is it all still a mystery?

Got any examples of where the difficulties are?

Sorry it is hard to give specific advice to a non-specific question ;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It was me that saidI remember thinking if there are really people flying around who could only manage to get 70% on that exam then I hope they keep well out of my way and I'm pretty sure I still think that way. (Within reason. All the nonsense about bureaucratic structures in the current air law exam seems to be rather less directly related to the safety of other users of the sky.)

I'm sure it'll depend on how you try to learn it. I had the benefit of evening classes as well as the self-study material, and personally I often learn better when someone explains to me how to understand something than if I just try to memorise a text book (at which I am totally cr@p). Also some of it depends on when you try to take the exams in relation to where you are with the flying; trying to understand the theory about drag and angle of attack and stuff seemed lots easier to me once I'd tried stalling an aircraft.

[paulo]

I found self study extremely hard, and in the end gave in and did one to one tuition for the last 3 or 4 exams, as well as doing a bit of Confuser when it all got a bit much (as it did with Met - I'm same as Evo on that, not at all sure I really understand it despite getting a high pass in the exam).

[High Wing Drifter]

I think the same goes to some extent for the ATPLs. Met is, not so much of a mystery anymore, but it would not be too difficult to get me to say "um" and "errm" quite regularly when furnishing explantions!

[Evo]

The more I fly, the less I think I understand Met. The wx around here never seems to follow the book... :confused:

[Papa Bravo Delta]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Like Gertrude the Wombat I am cr@p at learning from the books as well.

My instructor thinks that I am worrying unnecessarily and thinks I will have no problems. I am not that far in to it yet.

I guess I am doing my usual panic routine. :O

I have calmed a little bit now and taking the more methodical approach. I think the solution for me will be in the multi media CBT as opposed to the books.

[High Wing Drifter]

Don't worry PBD. If it helps I was in a more anxious and sleepless over my PPL exams than for my ATPLs!! Don't ask why...I don't know.

:confused: