Appeal of questions, where's that thin line?

[Martin1234]

Just wrote air law for the Swedish CAA and I'm surprised about the large amount of questions that were either incorrect, ambiguous or had more than one correct answer. How "correct" must a questions be in order to be acceptable? On which side of the border do you consider the following two questions to be;


-----------
In class B airspace when flying at/above 3050 m (10000 ft) AMSL what speed limit applies?

Correct answer: Not applicable


ICAO Annex 2 Paragraph 4.4 states that:
Unless authorised by the appropriate ATS authority, VFR flights shall not be operated:
a) above FL 200;
b) at transonic and supersonic speeds.

Since VFR flights are permitted in class B airspace you can't generally say that no speed limit is applicable. They should have used a wording like "class B airspace specifically impose...".
-----------


-----------
An applicant for a CPL(A) who is not a graduate from an integrated flying training course shall have completed as a pilot on aeroplanes having a certificate of airworthiness issued or accepted by a JAA Member State at least ... of cross-country flight including a cross-country flight totalling at least ...

Correct answer: 20 hours and 540 km (300 NM).


The wording is clearly taken out of its content from the JAR-FCL, specifically JAR-FCL 1.555, without in any way referring to it. If you just read the question they actually ask the experience required in order to apply for a CPL(A). Everyone is entitled to _apply_ for a CPL(A) but you might not be entitled to get the certificate issued which makes all alternatives equally correct. On the first page of the JAR-FCL 1 it clearly says "requirements for flight crew licensing" but if you read the excerpt without referring to JAR-FCL the question gets a completely different meaning.
-----------

[ATP_Al]

Martin,

I've just taken (and passed) the UK air law exam, and those questions seem reasonable from my experience. I'd ask your ground instructor though - he/she might think it would be worth appealing.

If I can offer some advice, try to keep it simple! - they're only looking for short answers. Use practice questions to get inside the examiner's head and give the answer the CAA want, not what you think it should be!

Good luck!:ok:

Al

[Martin1234]

Those examples given are actually the better ones produced on that test. Those are technicalities but in some instances it is hard to know what they really mean. The problem is that sometimes you have to guess what they mean and sometimes you have to read the exact wording since they try to trick you. A general increase in the quality of questions can't be too much to ask considering how much you pay for each test.

Anyway, the JAR theoretical examination is at least going in the right direction. For example, on the human performance test they have scrapped all questions about boyle's law and so on and nothing really on the physiological terms. Instead, they have put the emphasis on understanding what will happen when a decompression occurs, what type of food you should avoid etc. No questions on why a spatial disorientation occurs or any terms involved but instead asking questions on how and when they might occur.