Theory training requirements for pilots

[Oogle]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the theory requirements for pilots (especially ATPL(H)) too much?

Case in point: The UK ATPL(H) theory requirements. In my opinion, the requirements (theory I'm talking about - not the flying requirements) are some of the most stringent around. These make other country's requirements look like kindergarten.

Does it have to really be this way? Theory does not make a good pilot. The ability to fly an aircraft well and co-ordinate with your other crewmembers is the vital point here. I suppose "manage" is the most correct term.

I don't use half the stuff that my ATPL(H) theory course taught me.

Am I on my own with this thinking? Keen to hear rational replies.

[RotorSwede]

Isn't the ATPL requirements/exams the same in all the JAA countries ?

This has nothing to do with your question, but from what you wrote I got the impression that there are national ATPL exams ? Is there ?

RotorSwede

[g-mady]

I am only just starting down the long road (PPL H, 90 hours R22) but half the stories on this forum really do worry me!

Just an example the title of another thread reads "I will pay employer $10000" ...what?

And now your saying half the stuff Im hoping to study next year could be irrelevant !

Mady

[paco]

I beg to differ - theory does make a better pilot - the difference is that the JAR guys make you learn it at the beginning and expect you to be a seasoned professional from the start, whereas, in the USA and Canada, for example, you will still end up with the same knowledge but you learn it when you need it and it is recognised that you still have something to learn. The ground school you get as you change from type to type tends to cover it.

I found the stuff about departure and cosines etc very useful in N Canada when calculating bearings in my head - so much so that customers didn't believe I knew what I was doing when I didn't punch it into the GPS. They still got there, though!

I do agree that the helicopter exams are riddled with fixed wing theory, but there's an element of that anywhere. I also agree that the Transport Canada flight exams (have no experience of US ones) are waaay better and much more practical.

Phil

[helicopter-redeye]

Some of it will never be relevent to helicopter pilots (North Atlantic Track Systems) but 90% of it is.

But can you name any exam that is 100% relevent to what you will do with the qualification?

h-r:)

[hemac]

In my opinion it is far better to know something and never need to use that knowledge than it is to not know something and find you need it at a crucial point in your career, or worse flight.

H.

[hemac]

Thecontroller you obviously feel very passionately about this subject, perversly you have probably already done these exams or never intend to do them, whereas I will shortly be studying for them; and I still think the more knowledge you have the better your ability to make the right decision when the time comes.
having said that I agree that there should be a set of exams which are helicopter specific; and I believe they are being draughted as we speak. it could well be better the devil you know.

H.

[Oogle]

Hemac

Sorry, but I have to agree with the controller.

Let me know after you finish the exams. Yes, you will learn alot but I guarantee you that you will either not use alot of the theory, or forget it pretty damn quick.

Bring more reality into the examination system I say.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Yep I agree with you controller - Just lie back and think of England while the CAA ' take you ' ! 36 months to get your IR is madness for us chopper kids and is totally unrealistic. KMS, where have you done your IR?

[helicopter-redeye]

You're not telling me that knowing what wattage the runway lights are or knowing all about the gradient of a half tarmacced runway will make you a better helicopter pilot? Rubbish

1. Do not recall studying either (or questions on either subject).

2. Is the theory component about 'making you a better helicopter pilot' or about a common language that everybody in the sky uses? Lets extend that one. Why should doctors study surgery if they want to be a GP? Or accountants tax if they intend to be auditors? Perhaps we can have bespoke, buy the bits you want, training so you only study what you want to .. anarchy.

3. Helicopter specific Met? Helicopter specific Air Law? Helicopter specific VFR Comms? Helicopters spe .... etc There is some Ops Procs and some Flight Planning that is obviously for airliners. M&B is just being helicopterised by the GTS team o.bh.o. the CAA so you can do M&B on a Puma or a 269 from next year

The current system may not be perfect but it has standardisation. Even making it more H focused will be some minor changes around the side rather than something totally different.

h-r:)

(Incidently, I hate the damn exams, but thems the rules..)

[Heliport]

Interesting topic Oogle.

No, you're not alone by any means.

Does it have to really be this way?
No, as the FAA way shows, but it probably always will be.

[Oogle]

The same scenario is showing up with the thread about UK CAA helicopter instrument ratings.

The time and cost required never ceases to amaze me.

I'm not saying degrade what a pilot needs to know - just make it more realistic.

(I'll get off my soapbox now) :O

[copter2424]

Having decided a career change a few years ago. Gone though all the motions Jaa exams etc. Time away studing at one of the specialist ground schools at a massive cost. Im left in a very bewilding frame of mind. All the Heli schools and firms you so gladly gave your money to, who promised you the earth( or the air ,so to speak) all of a sudden when asking for work of some sort have suddenly "had to cut costs " and will contact you when something crops up. I have been around the Heli world for a few years now and am gobsmacked at the lack of loyalty to their students . I am very well aware companies have to make money , but where on earth has the niceness gone .
To all you wannabe heli pilots out there. SPEND ya money on a something else, cos you will get more pleasure from it. Oh and by the way I did Get my Jaa cpl and i use it , however its gonna take me a very long time to recupe some of the costs back .

[Bravo73]

copter2424,

Have you got an FI(H) rating???

[tommacklin]

I must admit that I thought the helicopter examinations at commercial level had been sorted out. Helicopter theory exams were simply being dragged behind the fixed wing equivalent for a long time and I understand that because commercial helicopter ops were late starters compared to airlines. When I did my commercial helicopter writtens I had to make a fuel plan for a VC10 from T'bilisi to Cork or somewhere like that....now that was quite irrelevant I thought, nonetheless, a fuel plan is a fuel plan.

Having taken the Canadian, the US and the Brit Helicopter tests, the only one that caused concern was the Brit version. The Canadian and US system is such that you buy a book of questions, work your way through them learning as you go, then you walk into an examination centre and take the test which will contain 300 of the questions you just studied - dead easy. Very practical, very user friendly and low cost.

The British system is obviously far more complex and certainly has the effect of sorting out the wheat from the chaff - maybe thats the aim.

Knowledge is good, however, I do believe that there is a tendency to cram pilots full of unnecessary info in the UK and to make life unnecessarily difficult for the aspiring commercial helicopter pilot. Let's hope the new exams do the trick.

[hemac]

Having taken the Canadian, the US and the Brit Helicopter tests, the only one that caused concern was the Brit version. The Canadian and US system is such that you buy a book of questions, work your way through them learning as you go, then you walk into an examination centre and take the test which will contain 300 of the questions you just studied - dead easy. Very practical, very user friendly and low cost.

Surely the whole point of examinations is to test the overall knowledge of a certain subject not the ability to remember questions and answers.dead easy is the cycling proficiency test not helicopter pilotage.

In my opinion.
Mind you, I'm not looking forward to the exams.

H.

[Bronx]

hemac

You got some very definite opinions there but something tells me you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to professional training programs and examinations.

Excuse me for asking but have you even got a private pilots ticket?

[tommacklin]

Hemac

I'm not suggesting that the questions are commited to memory, what I am saying is that the questions are published in a book which teaches you the subject matter using the actual questions you will see in the test. Seems quite sensible to me, no surprises on the day of the test.

I found them dead easy. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with...dead easy in comparison to...

I failed my cycling proficiency test.

[Whirlygig]

I sit here with my CPL aviation law study manual in front of me - I am inclined to agree with Hemac and don't anybody dare suggest that I know nothing about sitting professional exams with a degree and a Chartered Accountant to boot!

Bronx and tommacklin, it does sound very much as though the exams to which you refer can be learned by rote without any fundamental understanding of the principles involved. It doesn't sound sensible to me at all.

Cheers

Whirlygig

PS - Helicopter red-eye - auditors will still have to audit the tax accounts in a set of financial statements :ok:

[Martin1234]

At least for the FAA system it's actually easier to learn the subject as opposed to just remembering the questions (with answers!). If you know your subject relatively ok + study the question bank at great length you should definately know your stuff. If you don't, you will probably fail the oral part of the practical exam anyway.

The JAA system is much more about learning questions by heart. Without dedication to feedback questions, or a crammar course which is normally based on feedback, I would definately have failed a subject like air law.

The JAR syllabus is so wide that it's almost impossible to pass some of the tests without information of what's normally asked in the exams. When the JAR was introduced and there was no feedback I know a group of maybe 12 people doing meteorology - the only one that passed the test was a meteorologist!

The FAA system is far more superior where you concentrate on theory that will help you to keep yourself alive. The JAA system is just something you do to please the authorities.

[tommacklin]

A degree and a chartered accountant...then you may be aware of the benefit of studying past question papers. The system on this side of the pond is very similar to that.

Rote learning is the ability to repeat back what you have learned without necessarily undestanding or being able to apply what was learned. That is not the case here. Each bank of questions contains thousands. In the study books, the questions are presented and relevant reference material is listed, where appropriate a worked example is given. The candidate is then guided through why the other answers are wrong.

As with most multi-choice models, some of the answers are very close therefore the topic has to be understood in order to choose the correct answer. Unless, of course, you are able to memorise the thousands of potential questions.

I see the benefit of this approach being that the candidate's study is directed at the questions he/she will be asked. No red herrings, no time and effort wasted learning peripheral information that is not required for the test.

I would suggest that to be a more sensible and user friendly system, but what do I know?

[Flying Lawyer]

Whirlygig

I think Bronx was referring to professional training in the aviation context, not professional exams generally.

_________________


I have no first hand experience of professional training and wouldn't presume to comment on that but, based on studying for the CAA PPL exams and some (never completed) study for an unrestricted FAA PPL, I think the FAA system is better.
I like the FAA's focused 'practical application' approach and (except in academic study) think it's a waste of time learning things which will never be of any use other than for answering questions in exams.

[Martin1234]

Problem is that very few is lobbying in order to make a change of the JAR examination system. As a candidate for the exams it's easier to just do the exams. I highly doubt that authority employees and groundschools are doing too much to make a change.

I like the FAA's focused 'practical application' approach and, except in academic study

I think the crux of the matter is that JAA want to make it academic. Causes that lie behind the academic studying needed might be to help bleaching the pilot's collar. In order to pass the JAR exams you can't go directly from kindergarten to flight school.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Just a little note in the defence of Bristol and the other ground schools - a lot of people don't know that when they submit their courses or variations of them, the CAA charge ASTRONOMICAL sums of money to approve them. We're talking in the tens of thousands !!! Don't you just love it when all the coffee machines go ' free' at 10 o'clock at Gatwick Towers ?? I've been studying the FAA stuff recently, and what a piece of piss after doing the JAA stuff - at least this is one advantage, doing the JAA courses puts you in an excellent position when you want to gain other foreign licenses !

TFS - feeling better !:D

[NickLappos]

Knowing why the thing behaves as it does is essential to good flying skills, theory is very important.

That being said, tons of arcane trivia pounded at great expense into the candidate pilot's head is NOT good theory, and is often quite capable of actually diluting what should be known, so that the net result is worse than if no theory had been taught.

IMHO, the "theory" that the typical European training course expounds is in three parts -

1) some good stuff, supportive of what pilots do. This is the skinniest third of the course.

2) Some arcane trivia, not likely to ever be useful, and capable of diluting the good stuff. I recall flying some great Dutch pilots who had just done an IFR sim course, and they were busy calculating the entry heading in holding to permit a perfect turn onto the inbound course. Spent valuable brain cells crunching away on their kneepads, while the machine tended for itself! Poor bastards, they were actually taught how to hold (read holding as "wasting time, predictably") with precision!

3) Incorrect mangling of aerodynamics and physics, taught with the seriousness and infallibility of a Papal decision. These folks line up like lemmings here on pprune when we have our annual "Urban Myths" bar-fight.

Nobody likes theory teaching and learning more than me, nobody, but the theory most Europeans get taught is 2/3 trash. If one wants to toss their nose in the air when discussing how much better the CAA/JAA theory courses are (TFS, sorry!) then just line up and face the music. You are NO better in accident records, far rarer as a percent of population, own half the aircraft per capita, fly 1/3 the hours per capita and likely to pay perhaps 3 times the amount of an American pilot's course.

You HAVE to study theory, the ACTUAL flying is too expensive!

Any time a CAA/JAA guy wants me to post how simply awful the European Aviation systems are at building, promoting or expanding aviation, let me know. I am cracking my knuckles in anticipation! Were some of the true European pioneers to come back and see what you lot have allowed your governments to do to aviation, they would cry. After they put on their little orange vests, that is. ;-)

[paco]

Quite agree, Nick - European aviation thinking is still mostly over 60 years behind the times (note I said mostly - there are pockets of brilliance here and there), and geared to making you able to fix things in the jungle when there's nobody else around - why else would you need to learn about Cathode Ray Tubes and the use of sticky-backed plastic? "If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you". Well, that's the same reason we still have children being spanked.

Only one point I wish to make about the US & Canadian systems - the flight tests and interviews are where the action is, and any lack of effort in gaining knowledge for the exams soon becomes painfully obvious. Treating the exams as a tick in the box is not a good idea.

Phil

[helicopter-redeye]

PS - Helicopter red-eye - auditors will still have to audit the tax accounts in a set of financial statements

PS Whirlygig - helicopter pilots still have to fly in the same Met conditions and alongside fixed wing pilots. In the firm I worked for, you got a tax expert in to do the tricky stuff around the T word. Can't do that in a helicopeter .. :ok:

h-r:)

[tommacklin]

Nick,

I don't think anyone is saying that the CAA/JAA system is any better than the US/Canadian so don't put your boxing gloves on just yet.

I tend to agree with Paco that the real action takes place downstream from the examination room. Every year I do my 135 check, the classroom check by the inspector takes 4 hours before we even look at the aircraft, and it is 4 hours of probing questions and discussion. Every year I come away from the check having learned something from the inspector, thats the way I like it.

[Shawn Coyle]

Theory is needed, provided it is the right theory.
But if they (the EASA / JAA / CAA) are still making pilots do AC and DC electrics theory, that's not right.
Why not make A320 pilots do computer theory and digital theory now that we have computers flying the machine?
And the accident rates don't show, as Nick has pointed out, any improvement in safety over the FAA / Transport Canada methods.

[Oogle]

The UK theory exam has obviously been highlighted as the most over the top.

I myself agree with what all are saying. How can we let this continue to happen?

If so many people think that the theory requirements are too much, why doesn't someone come up with a more workable solution?

I fully agree that check rides must be "firm but fair".

Thanks for your thoughts so far.:ok: