Sick of students not doing their PPL exams?

[pplcruiser]

Hi, been a flying instructor for three years now, anyone else sick of trying to sit their PPL students down to actually do an exam?:ugh:

[MrAverage]

In a word no. If you tell them at the outset that they will not go solo until they've passed Air Law, or first solo nav til they've passed Nav., or QXC until also Met etc, etc - they'll soon get cracking. Better still advise them at the beginning to get all exams out of the way before starting the flying.

[ashdaman]

im a ppl student with 28 hours and have only done airlaw and RT coms.. i would be more enthusiastic if there was more tuition at the schools for this....

[bingofuel]

Some people seem qute content to turn up unprepared, expecting to go for a lesson and just have a fly around, land, pay their money and then probably go and bore their friends with tales of aviation heroics.

They have no real interest in trying to learn or understand the subject or in sitting exams and probably have no intention of ever attempting a skill test or to even go solo.

They just like the idea of flying around with an instructor. The bottom line is if they want to spend the money which pays your wages, don't complain too loudly.

[BillieBob]

i would be more enthusiastic if there was more tuition at the schools for thisYour wish has been granted. Under Part-FCL, there is a mandatory 100 hours of theoretical knowledge training for both the LAPL and the PPL, to be conducted by the approved training organisation. What is more, you will not be permitted to attempt the exmination unless recommended by the ATO responsible for your training. Should you fail to pass all of the examinations in 6 sittings, you will have to start again - another 100 hours of instruction. Now, that should concentrate the mind.

[Whopity]

Should you fail to pass all of the examinations in 6 sittings, you will have to start again - another 100 hours of instruction. Now, that should concentrate the mind.Especially as there are 7 separate PPL exams, so gaining a pass in all 7 subjects in 6 sittings is impossible!

[mrmum]

I take it we are keeping the same 7 subjects after EASA takes over and we all become ATOs (or close :sad:). Then I suppose our PPL students will have to do what candidates do for the ATPLs and try and take a couple of exams at one "sitting" and keep something in reserve for re-sits. So, perhaps not impossible, but certainly not straightforward or customer friendly.

Is there a definition of "sitting"?

[mrmum]

***************

You have to manage your students theory progress, in a similar manner to how you do for their flying. You've been at it for three years, I would expect you've got that sorted by now.
You should sit them down early-on and explain which exams you expect to be done by what point in the flying syllabus. Once that's clear to them, then make sure they've got the appropriate books or whatever study material they're using at the right time. Ask them every flight how they're getting on, if they would like any extra input from you. You need to motivate and encourage them (occasionally threaten some consequences) to do self-study between lessons. Not many people like airlaw, but I generally find students actually find most of the others quite interesting, relevant and even enjoyable. When the weather is unsuitable for flying, then get them in a briefing room and actually teach or explain something, being an instructor isn't all about flying the aircraft.
Having said all that, no matter what you do, there'll be some students who simply won't be arsed to try and do the theory, well that's their choice ultimately and it just gets expensive for them.

Just curious, but how long a time slot does your school allow you for a lesson?

[Whopity]

Of course it would be nice if the theory actually had some relevance to the training, rather than being just another obtuse obstacle. If this really was a common EASA licence one might have expected that each State would do the same thing, instead of having a National Licence badged up as an EASA licence; especially as the same licence without the badge is not valid on EASA aircraft, because some twerp at EASA can't work out the difference between aircraft certification and pilot certification. You could not get so many ignoramuses in the same pot if you tried.

[BillieBob]

Is there a definition of "sitting"? AMC No.1 to FCL.025
Sitting: a period of time established by the competent authority within which a candidate can take an examination. This period should not exceed 10 consecutive working days.

Examination: the demonstration of knowledge in 1 or more examination papers.

On which basis, all 7 papers of the PPL 'examination' can easily be attempted in a single 'sitting'. You will be permitted four attempts to pass each paper and six sittings in which to make those attempts. On successful completion of all papers, the examination pass will be valid for 24 months. The current procedure, whereby each subject is studied and the examination attempted in turn, will no longer be possible.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, I am a new and inexperienced class rating instructor - but I am a qualified university lecturer and a very experienced martial arts instructor, so I think I have some grasp of the teaching and learning process.

The job of the instructor surely is to manage the learning process for their student - this includes of-course the flying with associated briefings and debriefings, but also the progress of groundschool and such requirements as exist to pass written examinations.

Of course, many students will be self-motivated and manage large chunks of this for themselves - in which case it's just a case of monitoring their progress. However, if the instructor is not giving sufficient emphasis to the ground stuff, delivering or arranging for delivery of ground instruction as required, then surely they are in large part failing as a teacher?

Of course if the student is not accepting that direction - well you can take an 'or to thought but you can't make 'er think, but my experience is that if you give students in anything a structured learning plan that includes all components, they generally will fit in with it?...


Of course, I'm playing devils advocate here to some extent. Many schools seem to actively discourage this sort of learning management by paying little or nothing for groundschool, swapping instructors regularly, keeping the minimum of student records, or just not permitting enough time for proper briefs and debriefs. But ultimately it is surely down to the instructor first of all, then the student.

G

[Whopity]

I have known many instructors who have attempted to run ground schools with varied success. Often after lots of effort they run classes and the number of students slowly drops off, or in some cases is never enough students to make it worthwhile. Trying to fit lessons around flying lessons is difficult as the instructor can earn more money flying, and most students have something else they need to do.

Invariably schools don't charge for ground-school, which is why FIs don't get paid for it. Perhaps students need to get used to the idea that a PPL is going to cost an additional £1500 to cover the ground-school, but of course this will significantly reduce the number of PPL candidates which is why schools have not done this in the past.

[Duckeggblue]

mrmum said

Then I suppose our PPL students will have to do what candidates do for the ATPLs and try and take a couple of exams at one "sitting" and keep something in reserve for re-sits. So, perhaps not impossible, but certainly not straightforward or customer friendly.




Good point mrmum. Does anybody know what we are trying to achieve by this change? ( if anything!)

The PPL is not a professional qualification and is often undertaken "just" for recreational flying (dare I say "FUN"?) by people who need to fit the course in with a job, etc etc .... and are customers - not career builders.

So why should we apply the pressures of a professional course where candidates are often full time and career driven, to a PPL?

Exams do not seem to be a problem to most PPL students if they come in the context of the flying training and the various landmarks associated with it.
When taught like this, they may need some ground school but why would anybody need 100 hours of theoretical knowledge training?

BillieBob says

The current procedure, whereby each subject is studied and the examination attempted in turn, will no longer be possible.


So if we loose the direct link with the flying training & have to load the cost of a PPL with a mandatory 100 hours of ground school to compensate, how is this progress?

[proudprivate]

Your wish has been granted. Under Part-FCL, there is a mandatory 100 hours of theoretical knowledge training for both the LAPL and the PPL, to be conducted by the approved training organisation. What is more, you will not be permitted to attempt the exmination unless recommended by the ATO responsible for your training.


which is of course, a very costly and inefficient way of studying any subject, not just aviation. It will lead to a dramatic decrease of new PPL students and PPLs, as not everyone has the time to sit 100 hours in class, in addition to having the money to spend it on third rate course materials being taught by the aviation equivalent of a woodwork teacher.

And then, after a while, less private pilots visiting airports, buying insurance, renting club planes etc... leading to more unemployment in aviation. Luckily this gets partly compensated by jobs for some in Cologne and Gatwick.


Does anybody know what we are trying to achieve by this change?


The aim is to probably to destroy general aviation as we know it and limit your freedoms as a citizen.


All this is of course still NOT final. You can still write to the TRAN member of the EP and urge them to stop the lunacy. But you should do it NOW, as time is running out.


Coming back to the thread : one of the main reasons why students don't sit their exams is because a large part of the subject matter of many of the exams is irrelevant to PPL flight. In addition, the exam questions are not at all focused on testing the few relevant bits and the way the questions are put are a disgrace to anyone familiar with education and academia.

That is very discouraging for any kind of student. So it is not a matter of being sick about students not doing their exams. Rather, you should be sick about the CAA licensing department and the way they are composing exam questions.

[BillieBob]

not everyone has the time to sit 100 hours in classTo be fair, the requirement is not for 100 hours in class. The AMC states "This theoretical knowledge instruction provided by the approved training organisation should include a certain element of formal classroom work but may include also such facilities as interactive video, slide/tape presentation, computer based training and other media distance learning courses."

Whatever type of instruction the ATO provides, it will need to include a means of verifying that the 100 hours of instruction has been completed as it will be under a legal obligation to certify as much when recommending that a candidate takes the examination. It is difficult to see how this could work, given the fact that each school holds it own set of examination papers. With this in mind, it is worth noting the phrase 'established by the competent authority' in the definition of a 'sitting'. Could this perhaps signal the end of the multiple Custodians of Examination Papers in favour of a more centralised system of examination?

[Genghis the Engineer]

So who here actively provides their students with a learning plan, even if you aren't delivering the (groundschool) teaching yourself?

G

[proudprivate]

Could this perhaps signal the end of the multiple Custodians of Examination Papers in favour of a more centralised system of examination?


What leads you to conclude that this is or will be the case ? Where does it say that we will be rid of Nationally set exam questions ?

A European centralized system of examination is inevitably fairer (remember the JAA-IR farce in Spain !), preferably one where each question type is in the public domain, (as well as the subject matter to study). In this way, you can prune the biggest nonsense and replace it with more practically relevant matter, perhaps with a more modern (audio)(visual) approach.

The best system for PPL theoretical instruction is then one that combines (interactive) DVD, provided by the ground school / instructor, with the public domain reading material and a question drill database (based on the public domain subset). An audio version of the public domain reading material could supplement the learning process, while driving your car (CD/USB) or using public transport (ipod/mpX) on way to work.

The goal should be to get as many students as possible, many many more than the present intake, to pass the theoretical exams (without compromising on safety relevant matters), but in a way that the learning experience is a pleasant one.

[Duckeggblue]

It gets worse!


Whatever type of instruction the ATO provides, it will need to include a means of verifying that the 100 hours of instruction has been completed as it will be under a legal obligation to certify as much when recommending that a candidate takes the examination.


So, the 100 hours has to be "verified" before an exam can be taken.
Given that many ATOs prefer Air Law to be under the belt before first solo ( Yes, I know it's not mandated but, to some, it seems sensible) it looks as if all of the theoretical stuff has to be done before first solo.

This will mean quite an outlay and lots of stick before any chance of tasting the carrot........

Oh dear :hmm:

[BillieBob]

Where does it say that we will be rid of Nationally set exam questions ?Nowhere, as far as I am aware. Neither did I suggest that this would be the case.