Up to date JAA ATPL learning objectives?

[SuperTed]

Ive been to www.jar-atpl.com (http://www.jar-atpl.com) and viewed their learning objectives for the JAA ATPL.

I have a question. Are there more up to date learning objectives than these- free of charge? The ones on this site are Oct 1999, surely things have changed haven't they?

Thanks in advance

[Dick Whittingham]

Look on www.jaa.nl, (http://www.jaa.nl,) the oficial site, unless the url you used is the same place under a new name

[Paul Hickley]

The most recent JAA Learning Objectives (LOs) are Oct 99. You can cross check them on the CAA's website, which is http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/pld/fcl/fcl_information.asp?category=4

The LOs have not changed since Oct 99 but the questions have. Let me explain why. Let me also make it 100% clear that what follows is Paul Hickley's personal view and is not to be taken as representing Oxford Aviation Training.

The JAA did not issue LOs, feeling that they should be free to ask whatever they liked. The European Association of Professional Pilot Schools (EAPPS) put pressure to establish a syllabus. Eventually, the JAA reluctantly agreed, but did not actually produce anything. So EAPPS produced their own draft which they submitted to the JAA. The JAA just rubber-stamped it virtually without changing anything and published it as the 99 LOs.

It is my opinion that the JAA only did it to get EAPPS off their back. They still continue to ask what they like and they see no reason to amend the LOs because they never stick to them anyway. Some of their questions are so outrageous that they need not merely explaining, but exposing. That is why I published the answer to the thread "General Nav Feedback Question" - still in the archives - last entry 25 Aug 01. I felt that the full answer was completely unreasonable at ATPL level and the simplified answer was too much of a simplification - even though that was quite difficult enough. Other examples are the classification of RF frequency bands into S,C and X bands - what? These are old NATO terms which were superseded in the late 60s. Not only have they never been civil terminology, they're wrong anyway - the new (1970!)military bands are called A,B, C, D, etc. I could go on.......

For these reasons, I believe the LOs to be pretty near useless - or at least, only to be used to give the most general of guidance, much of which will differ in detail. The ONLY way to find out what's likely to be in the paper is to find out what they're actually asking - ie, the use of feedback.

You shouldn't use feedback to learn all the answers off by heart, but it is helpful to know the type of questions, the areas of interest, and the required level of depth.

Just my view, of course. Others may disagree.

Paul

[Broken Wings]

If the JAR exams are not based on the LO's what are they based on? Sorry I must be too old ...
Learning Objectives..-> Syllabus..-> Exam
Yep - thought that was too simple! :confused:

Removed naughty word and spelling error

[ 10 September 2001: Message edited by: Broken Wings ]

[Dick Whittingham]

OOPS. Chill out, everbody. The JAA exam system was not put together very efficiently, but it isn't part of a conspiracy theory.
Point one. There should have been an industry driven set of objectives that defined what a new FO should know on his first ride. This would then transfer to a syllabus, from which a set of learning objectives comes, all carrying the unspoken introduction "at the end of the course the student should be able to...." Schools would then set up a teaching programme, validate internally by school tests and the The JAA would validate externally by the exams, to see if the objectives have been met.

The whole JAA thingy was done so rapidly that they had no staff to do this, and the EAAPS teams sat down to combine writing the LOs with their own ideas of what the syllabus should be. My group did Met, under a Meteo Swiss chairlady, and the full time group was 2 Germans, one Frenchman, one Belgian lady and me, but with input from many other national sources who did not attend the meetings. As practising instructors we did our best to keep the LOs sensible.

Next step was the collection of the question bank. The idea, as explained to me, was to have 3 questions covering each point in the LOs. National authorities sent in their own QBs, and in the case of Met the CAA was the lead state. I was asked to help, and at Gatwick we went through hundreds and hundreds of questions, and cast out about a third as being unintelligble, wrong or unverifiable. (and I can't remember any of them)This then gave the starting CQB.

The first exams threw up more problems, not so much in Met as in some of the other subjects. Schools talk regularly to the CAA to voice criticism of the questions and query the book answers. Many problem questions have been amended or written out, and a new and better CQB is now in use.

It is not perfect, but it is getting better.You may disagree with what the LOs call for, but they were put in by the representatives of the European schools. In general, if it is in the LOs you can be tested on it, and probably will be. Certainly our course content at Bristol is based on the LOs.

The exact form of the questions, the twists and the ambiguities, can only be found out from feedback. Even this is suspect. Students do not always report the questions correctly, and schools put their own gloss on the feedback when they write up their handouts.

In summary; imperfect but improving. It is still theoretically possible to pass the exams if you meet the learning objectives.

Best of luck to you all

Dick W.
PS. This is my personal view, so don't hold Alex to account.