Depth of Knowledge for Meterology

[jamesgrainge]

Hi all, I'm sure you can help, one topic in my Meteorology book is full of symbols to define weather events. In online question banks, they do occur. It would seem a potential waste of my time and brain capacity to learn what they all mean, when I could simply look them up for reference in reality.

Do questions on the symbols occur in the actual question papers?

[Whopity]

You need to be able to read and interpret TAF and METARS and recogise weather systems depicted on met charts. The purpose is to ensure that you have enough relevant knowledge to operate an aircraft safely not just to pass an exam.

[jamesgrainge]

You need to be able to read and interpret TAF and METARS and recogise weather systems depicted on met charts. The purpose is to ensure that you have enough relevant knowledge to operate an aircraft safely not just to pass an exam.

Thanks for the reply, yes i can decode Metar and Taf without isssue. But there must be over 50 symbols, are they really necessary by memory?

[memories of px]

what i did was to make up some cards, with the symbol on one side and the decode on the other, shake them them up in a box, and keep practicing, what the decode is for this symbol, and what the symbol is for this decode, youll have them cracked in no time.

[jamesgrainge]

what i did was to make up some cards, with the symbol on one side and the decode on the other, shake them them up in a box, and keep practicing, what the decode is for this symbol, and what the symbol is for this decode, youll have them cracked in no time.

Are they in the actual exams though?

[Baikonour]

Are they in the actual exams though?

Maybe not ... but they may occur in real life :E

[jamesgrainge]

Maybe not ... but they may occur in real life :E

In real life i can reference any I am unsure of when checking the maps.

My personal view is the content needs reviewing and what and why we learn updating.

[memories of px]

you could always purchase the Air Pilots Manuals Met. exam prep. book, 5 mock exams to test your knowledge and a guide to whats in the exam.

[wiggy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baikonour
Maybe not ... but they may occur in real life
In real life i can reference any I am unsure of when checking the maps.

My personal view is the content needs reviewing and what and why we learn updating.

Well regardless of your personal view it seems the authorities feel otherwise.....

FWIW in real life in aviation, even on the heavy metal, even with iPads and other gizmos you often don't have the time to "reference" charts, etc, there's a need to have ones own personal memory bank up to speed, so maybe you could think of memorising station circles/met charts as a useful mental exercise, if nothing else.

[memories of px]

:=Whether you're flying a 777 or a C152 you need a good understanding of Met, you owe it to your future passengers.

[BackPacker]

Agree.

Of all the knowledge I lost and gained since obtaining my PPL, Met was probably the highest net gain. In other words: I learned a lot more about Met than was ever examined at the PPL exam, since doing the exam.

I also hold a gliders pilot license, maybe that's a factor as well. It is very useful to be able to look at the proper Met charts and predict how thermic it's going to be tomorrow...

So, yes, learn the symbols instead of just expecting that you can reference them later on.

[jamesgrainge]

All very good advice, thankyou. Bit of a pain but I guess i have to get learning.

On an aside, what do you guys think about the theory format? It strikes me that it could do with being formatted by the CAA properly, and given a syllabus to be tested. Much like in a school. Having bought all the books it seems like 50% is waffle. With books covering 300 pages it seems a little ridiculous to try and learn it verbatim. When you come to use the online question banks they are not of the same format as the actual papers, which caught me by surprise (i scraped a pass) which leads me to learning the latter subjects more thoroughly. I guess what I'm driving at is, why does it seem such a disorganised mess? Why can't the CAA provide exams on the basis of

1) This is crucial to flight safety-Learn it and pass the exam
2) This is crucial to operating an aircraft in airspace-Learn it and pass the exam
3) The following material is supplementary and forms a deeper understanding of the subjects-learn at your leisure

As you can tell the lack of structure frustrates me.

[Capt Kremmen]

jg


If you have a logical and tidy mind you'll find much to offend you in aviation. Much of it is a 'dogs breakfast' ! Anomalies and contradictions abound. Go with the flow. Study that which you need to pass your exams. Once you've passed, your time will be pre-occupied with gaining experience and becoming a better pilot.


Much of that with which you stuffed your mind, will never again be needed. Good luck.

[jamesgrainge]

jg


If you have a logical and tidy mind you'll find much to offend you in aviation. Much of it is a 'dogs breakfast' ! Anomalies and contradictions abound. Go with the flow. Study that which you need to pass your exams. Once you've passed, your time will be pre-occupied with gaining experience and becoming a better pilot.


Much of that with which you stuffed your mind, will never again be needed. Good luck.

A different and refreshing perspective. I thought it was just me. Thanks for the advice. For someone who has condensed their PPL into about 8 months but also works 80 Hours a week, I find it very time consuming as you can appreciate.

[VariablePitchP]

As above, just learn them I'm afraid. Use que cards if you have to and get someone to test you. You'll find that the symbols aren't just completely random, they are inherently designed to look somewhat like what they are depicting (to a point) and many are just variants (light, moderate, severe, of the same thing).

You will need to use the, in the future so you may as well learn them at this early stage so the are ingrained to use in the future.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Interested to know as it might await me some day, how much of this do you actually remember vs how much are you supposed to remember?

A surprising amount gets beaten into the average brain. On my first jet it involved knowing all the start/stop/flight limits, a goodly amount of the normal and abnormal checklists, and a thorough knowledge of where to find stuff in the company Ops manual.

Current types: much is in the FMS. I can't remember the last time I properly calculated take off or landing performance from a manual, nowadays you enter the data either into the FMS or EFB for where you are and out pop the numbers. And you still have to remember where to find the right information in the Ops Manual. Much of the time, if you don't know, it's somewhere in one of the big, thick books in the docs stowage.

As for the OP. Take good time to learn the met stuff. Not only is it interesting it will keep you alive. If you think it's all a bit of a waste of time take up a different hobby. My boss and I were talking about decoding station circles and creating TAFs from them for the ATPL exams recently and felt bloody old when a couple do young co's asked us what we were on about as station circles are no longer in the syllabus for ATPL. The atmosphere we live in is fascinating to pilots, sailors, farmers and many others. Checking the TAFs and forms 214/215 every morning over breakfast and keeping an eye through the day as to how accurate they/you were is a good way to learn. I still do it, even on non flying days.

SND

[Ber Nooly]

OP, if you can't be bothered learning the theory and it all seems a bit too much then you really should reconsider if you want to pursue this.

[n5296s]

A pilot friend of mine (the guy who got me started on all this) reckons that all this is in lieu of an actual intelligence test, which would no doubt be considered discriminatory. So instead you have to learn and remember zillions of largely useless bits and pieces. It's not THAT hard though it does sometimes seem kind of silly.

When I did my CPL the theory test was full of questions involving NDBs and wind drift - exercises in mental trigonometry, like you're going to be embarking on that when you're already distracted and disoriented flying in clag and turbulence. In the US at least, they were at the same time embarking on a program to decommission all the NDBs. (I think those questions have gone now). And guess how many on GPS...? You don't need me to tell you the answer.

My personal favourite is the three definitions of "night" and when they apply (in FAA land anyway).

[jamesgrainge]

I think that's it. Some of it I don't really know what or why I'm learning it. I'm simply ingesting the information and then parroting it out. Which to me is no indicator of intelligence or competence. I don't find the subjects particularly difficult (apart from air law), I simply want to prioritise my learning for the important things while trying to squeeze in 0-ATPL in two years whilst also working every hour God sends to pay for it. Not an easy task as you can imagine.

Thanks for your responses. Even though they are mixed and I still don't know if they will be in the exam questions lol.

[jamesgrainge]

They might be. They certainly are in the official question bank, because they are in the 050 learning objectives – 10 02 01: Decode and interpret significant weather charts (low, medium, and high level).

So that includes the little symbols to denote Thunderstorms/Hail etc. As well as the abbreviations we need to learn in a Metar....See what i mean

[jamesgrainge]

I'm unwilling to comment on individual scenarios of which I have no experience.

I take on board your point, but by all accounts the ATPL theory is just as easy, simply more time consuming. I don't really see what this is proving. An ability to learn large chunks of fact and imagery? Like a 5 year old? It's starting to feel like all you need to fly a plane commercially is a wedge of cash and a decent working memory.

In your example all I can draw is similar to making a cake. I may have made it 500 times. I occasionally still need to check the recipe.......Everyone is still happy when they eat the cake.

[Ber Nooly]

I don't see what the problem is here. So there are a handful of symbols and another handful of metar/taf abbreviations to learn. Just learn them. There aren't that many. You'd have them learnt in the time you're spending on this thread. Don't you WANT to know as much as possible? Why settle only for the bare minimum to get you through the exam?

As I said before, if you really have that attitude then maybe flying a plane is not for you. Sorry but it has to be said.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I'm unwilling to comment on individual scenarios of which I have no experience.

I take on board your point, but by all accounts the ATPL theory is just as easy, simply more time consuming. I don't really see what this is proving. An ability to learn large chunks of fact and imagery? Like a 5 year old? It's starting to feel like all you need to fly a plane commercially is a wedge of cash and a decent working memory.

In your example all I can draw is similar to making a cake. I may have made it 500 times. I occasionally still need to check the recipe.......Everyone is still happy when they eat the cake.

What a monumentally arrogant response. If you don't want to learn the trade spare us your company. The difference between PPL and ATPL is best described as GCSE to 2nd year degree.

So will you rely on the P1 knowing the de-code, or are you so great you'll be straight to LHS and the P2 can do it?

After 30 years with a professional license a stack of hours and now sitting in the CP's chair you come over as the worst type of new license holder I meet weekly.

If you don't know the ATPL basics when you walk through the door you will fail. Bye bye to the training costs. No-one will support or help you. A PPL may get away with what you suggest, a pro can't. You want to be a pro, then get with the pro programme. Learn what you have to, be prepared to learn a f###ing sight more, stop learning, stop working. A fail on your training record will stick like s##t to a blanket. It'll follow you everywhere. It's a smaller world than you think. I originally thought you wanted to just complete ppl so apologise for my earlier answer. You want to be a big jet pilot, grow up and think like one.

I treat a flight in my PA22 as seriously as a working day flight, most pros do. We've seen many of the snags and catches most ppl's will never see. I you want to go off half cocked you'll find a lot of those snags waiting to get you.

This is the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network. The clue is in Professional Pilots. Be one or just F### Off!

SND

[Sir Niall Dementia]

FZRA;

The uniform, the nice places, the glamour, the 02:00 starts, the jet lag, the divorce rate, the fatigue of too many earlies or too many lates. Dear James has no idea. Fly somewhere nice and get a half hour turnaround. Fighting off the hosties? Most of them are just interested in a good nights kip after being on their feet all day, and all are well aware of the need to avoid relationships with pilots.

I respect your 10 years, that is a serious commitment. I hope you're still enjoying the job, getting the satisfaction that comes from doing really quite complex tasks and making them look easy. I can't help thinking that if the OP makes it to an jet he'll be very disappointed.

I still find PFM in some areas of the job, that's why I carry on. But those areas aren't the ones I expected 30 years ago.

SND

[jamesgrainge]

What a monumentally arrogant response. If you don't want to learn the trade spare us your company. The difference between PPL and ATPL is best described as GCSE to 2nd year degree.

So will you rely on the P1 knowing the de-code, or are you so great you'll be straight to LHS and the P2 can do it?

After 30 years with a professional license a stack of hours and now sitting in the CP's chair you come over as the worst type of new license holder I meet weekly.

If you don't know the ATPL basics when you walk through the door you will fail. Bye bye to the training costs. No-one will support or help you. A PPL may get away with what you suggest, a pro can't. You want to be a pro, then get with the pro programme. Learn what you have to, be prepared to learn a f###ing sight more, stop learning, stop working. A fail on your training record will stick like s##t to a blanket. It'll follow you everywhere. It's a smaller world than you think. I originally thought you wanted to just complete ppl so apologise for my earlier answer. You want to be a big jet pilot, grow up and think like one.

I treat a flight in my PA22 as seriously as a working day flight, most pros do. We've seen many of the snags and catches most ppl's will never see. I you want to go off half cocked you'll find a lot of those snags waiting to get you.

This is the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network. The clue is in Professional Pilots. Be one or just F### Off!

SND

Okay. Berating and shouting duly noted. I shall scuttle myself off and think about what I have done. My apologies, I'm just trying to ascertain exactly what is needed for me to progress at this stage. Many people have told me that ATPL is no harder than an A Level. So someone is wrong in their estimation. No offence meant nor detraction from your profession. The things mentioned such as potential life saving information should never be skimped on, it is this kind of organising I would appreciate from the CAA as oppose to simply reading 2100 pages with the view of "Learn this". Thanks for the response.

[wiggy]

Many people have told me that ATPL is no harder than an A Level.

I'd say it's slightly harder, and certainly there's a heck of a lot to learn.

I think what perhaps didn't help your case (initially) was your idea was you could simply look up stuff as needed.

A pro will tell you he/she has to have at least a working knowledge of what probably totals up to a thousand pages or more of rules and regs in the various manuals - doesn't mean they need to know everything in each manual chapter and verse, but you do need to have recall of the really important stuff (e.g crosswind/airframe limits) and at least know enough about the books so that you can find out swiftly trivia like legit carriage of cats and dogs, or the symbols on high level met charts. (though I'd agree some of that's got easier these days with search functions on things like iPads).

So...I'd agree that knowing the details of station circles might seem trivial to someone heading for an ATPL but if nothing else it's a filter for the examiners to see to see who has the memory skills to retain info and who can't.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Last year I couldn't spell 'meteorologist', now I are one :}

[Heston]

Interpreting station circles is in KS3 Geography.

[xrayalpha]

OK, here's a thought for the day, VFR flying:

Why bother learning some amateur hour weather forecasting when the real, professional stuff is almost universally available at the click of a button?

To me, the important thing in VFR flying is to be able to look out of the window and know what is going to happen in the next 60 minutes. It should take you no more than 30 minutes to divert to a safe landing place.

Yet that is the one thing that we are not really taught and examined on!

The rest of it... well, let me tell you a story!

Decades ago, I worked for one of the country's top selling newspapers. The synoptic chart was drawn up by someone in the met office at about 10am in the morning. Probably actually drawn!

It was then faxed to the newspaper. They then sent it off to get redrawn in the art dept to fit the allocated space in the paper.

About 2pm/3pm in the afternoon, we would get the drawing to put on Page 2. Page 2 was one of the early news pages, so had a off-stone time (ie ready to go to the plate makers) of about 6:30pm.

The first edition would then go to press (ie start printing) c 8:30/9pm.

Those papers would then go to the Scottish islands etc and you could buy the there from about 9am the following morning.

So if you camped on Bute, or Broadford, you would get a synoptic chart that was - literally - 24 hours out of date.

So you would really have to have a knowledge of weather systems, how they should develop and how they actually are developing. Then you would be able to look at a day-old chart and say: that front is not doing what it is meant to!

Back to today.

The most powerful computers in the country and a whole bunch of experience professional forecasters - many with 1st Class honours degrees - produce a forecast and 30 minutes later the world can access it on their smartphones.

Yet we have to go through the charade of producing amateur hour stuff - and are we then expected to discard the professional outlook in favour of our own!

[wiggy]

are we then expected to discard the professional outlook in favour of our own!

I certainly wouldn't assume because something is churned out by pro to an App using a super computer that it's bound to be accurate for where you are.

As is often mentioned in another sub forum the quality of local forecasting seems to have deteroriated since the demise of a local forecaster (e.g in the Vale of York), who knew his area, knew about the effects local topography had, and would produce a forecast based on the computer version coming out of Bracknell (as it was).

Even if you discard station circles from the PPL/ATPL there's still a need for an individual pilot to be have enough basic met knowledge in his her/head to "decode" what he see's out of the window and act accordingly...

[Crash one]

At work one day years ago someone said " what's the weather going to do today? The kids want to go to the beach". I said "it's going to rain at two o'clock but only for half an hour".
It rained at five mins past two and stopped at two forty.
She couldn't believe it. I was the weather God from then onward.
Smug basturd!

[FZRA]

My apologies, I'm just trying to ascertain exactly what is needed for me to progress at this stage.

If you don't need to learn it for the PPL, you'll probably need to know it for the ATPL. And if you don't need to know it for the ATPL, you may well want to know it for real life. So why try and scrape by at this early stage? It'll probably save you time in the long run to aim high from the beginning rather than cut corners by only learning what's going to be examined.

[tmmorris]

Can't believe no-one has told the OP to start by learning to spell 'meteorology’...

Crash one you have let my secret out! I have the same reputation - combination of reading local TAFs (BZN is good for our area) and using the radar on WeatherPro.

[Piltdown Man]

Somebody has a little problem that is about to get a lot bigger. Learning chart symbols is simplicity itself. No interpretation required, no fancy language, just tick the correct box for each squiggle. But it's the price you pay to get licence. Simple learning a five year old could do. As to their relevance for PPL flying that is questionable, but you don't have the luxury of any choice. Aviation law is equally trivial to learn, but does matter. But these two subjects demonstrate your problem. As the professionals have pointed out, the ATPL subjects are a little bit harder but considerablly broader. Some may argue that they are parts that are irrelevant to many aspects of flying but the big thing is if you are struggling now you really shouldn't bother with commercial flying. You won't be able to cope with the exams because you have demonstrated beyond doubt this entry level is above you as you are finding these things difficult. But this does not mean you are stupid. It's just that this job has an entry requirement and you simply can't struggle at this level and expect to make it through.

I wish you the very best in your current career.

PM

[TryingToAvoidCBs]

A few points I would like to make.

Firstly, I would argue that the ATPL syllabus is not as hard as A-Level in terms of difficulty, it certainly isn't 2nd year degree difficult. However it's the work load that kills you (significantly higher workload than a dgree). If you're not willing to put in upto 10-12 hours per day then you're going to struggle. That comment is obviously subjective and varies greatly depending on your own ability.

Secondly, I was a full time ATPL theory instructor for 3 years. In that time I saw many hundreds of students pass through my classrom. Although it sounds obvious, there was a clear correlation between those students who didn't put the effort in and those who couldn't pass exams. You name the excuse, I've heard it.

Slightly more on topic, the one thing that I noticed more than anything, were the modular students who came to our school who already had a PPL but clearly paid no attention to the theory whilst flying.
If I had a pound for every PPL student that came to me claiming they had never heard of the Lift equation, or Bernoulli, or a great circle track, or how to read a TAF, or what specific gravity is, or what TODA/TORA mean, or what Hypoxia is (the list is endless) I would be able to recoup the cost for my PPL.
I had students with A-levels in Maths that couldn't do trigonometry, and students with A-levels in Geography who had never heard of Lat and Long.

Students who relied on SkyDemon for their hours building, having taken the easy way out of using a map and a stopwatch usually struggled like crazy whilst doing their CPL.
It was clear which students read and understood the material, and those that used question banks. Those that memorised answers, or concepts but never really understood them were the ones that couldn't pass exams. And ultimately dropped out of ground school costing them thousands of pounds for nothing.

I always told my students, "It's easier to learn one concept that can answer a hundred questions, then memorise one hundred answers". You'd be surprised how many students ignored that advice because they couldn't be bothered to learn a single difficult concept.

To the OP. The background knowledge you learn for the PPL (if learnt correctly) will make your ATPLs 70% easier. The ATPL syllabus is simply an extension of the PPL syllabus, in far greater detail. The background knowledge you will have will allow you to sail through the ATPL exams whilst still having the understanding that you will require for a technical interview at a later date.

I won't deny that a large percentage of the ATPL syllabus is out of date and not relevant to the 21st century. However, the basics required for PPL will not only make the rest of your training easier, but they'll save your life too. Don't ever take the short cut, learn everything you can.

[jamesgrainge]

Somebody has a little problem that is about to get a lot bigger. Learning chart symbols is simplicity itself. No interpretation required, no fancy language, just tick the correct box for each squiggle. But it's the price you pay to get licence. Simple learning a five year old could do. As to their relevance for PPL flying that is questionable, but you don't have the luxury of any choice. Aviation law is equally trivial to learn, but does matter. But these two subjects demonstrate your problem. As the professionals have pointed out, the ATPL subjects are a little bit harder but considerablly broader. Some may argue that they are parts that are irrelevant to many aspects of flying but the big thing is if you are struggling now you really shouldn't bother with commercial flying. You won't be able to cope with the exams because you have demonstrated beyond doubt this entry level is above you as you are finding these things difficult. But this does not mean you are stupid. It's just that this job has an entry requirement and you simply can't struggle at this level and expect to make it through.

I wish you the very best in your current career.

PM

Haha, what a fantastic answer. At no point did I mention "struggling" to learn the information. I simply wanted to understand the relevance to give me some structure to my revision. I actually attended a selective grammar school and have a high level of attainment, the concepts are probably simple enough, there has been nothing I haven't been able to comprehend, however I am the type of person who needs an underlying reason to learn, not just simply because I have to.

The answer provided to me by less arrogant members of the forum has cleared it up nicely. Especially the response directly above, what a fantastic and informative piece of instruction that shows me why to learn in depth subjects at this early stage.

[Piltdown Man]

Flying is full of random meaningless rubbish and the further up the tree you get, the greater the pile rubbish you have to deal with. If commercial flying exams consisted of writing in small boxes in a darken cupboard, flower arranging and home decorating you would actually learn something useful. But they don't. So you just get on with it. There's loads more where that came from and it NEVER STOPS! So you have to ask yourself, is this an industry a gifted intellectual such as yourself wants to join?

PM

[jamesgrainge]

Flying is full of random meaningless rubbish and the further up the tree you get, the greater the pile rubbish you have to deal with. If commercial flying exams consisted of writing in small boxes in a darken cupboard, flower arranging and home decorating you would actually learn something useful. But they don't. So you just get on with it. There's loads more where that came from and it NEVER STOPS! So you have to ask yourself, is this an industry a gifted intellectual such as yourself wants to join?

PM

And you highlight exactly why I asked the initial question. The process is archaic and out of touch. As numerous people have pointed out, the integration of technology makes aspects of the theory irrelevant. As a younger person I am much more used to being able to efficiently locate and apply the appropriate information provided to me.

From the outside there is no chance of change.

[wiggy]

You know you may be thinking otherwise but you are not the only "high attaining" person on this thread.

You've had some extremely thorough and valid answers from the likes of PM, Tryingto...and others, people who like you no doubt use apps, iPads, smartphones, etc, some of whom are graduates of scientific disciplines, many of them also pro pilots with thousands if not tens of thousands of hours under there belt....do you not think they might have just perhaps a clearer and more comprehensive view of what is actually required for the likes of the PPL/ATPL, further training and even routine line operations? I only ask because even though it seems you have yet to gain your PPL you seem somewhat convinced that everybody replying here is wrong and/or over the hill and out of date and you are the only one marching in step.

Look, you can rail against the system as long as you want but believe me it changes very very slowly and if you are waiting for the CAA or EASA to change the syllabus you are in for a long wait.

TBH in the time you've spent here arguing you could probably have learnt all you needed to know about station circles and a chunk more of the syllabus. I wish you luck in the training, I really do, but if you only take one thing away from this thread could I seriously suggest you really reconsider the "why should I learn this, I know better" approach...

(Written on an iPad).

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Unfortunately learning and being tested on irrelevant information and knowledge is not unique to aviation.

Other professions have similar problems.

The issue that seems to be missed is that those who test and examine seem unaware of those subjects and knowledge that is important to the student.

I remember having to learn about Decca Navigation Systems at a time when glass cockpits were first being introduced. I've never seen a Decca system, not even in a museum. There is a lag behind the needs of industry.

It never fails to amaze me that the more sophisticated the human condition becomes in technical and professional matters, the lower the standards that seem to prevail.

Why can't ALL examinations and testing strive to become 100% relevant?

It might mean less theoretical examinations and a simpler syllabus - or a move towards more vocational training.

There was a time when the mechanical and technical knowledge of aircraft and their systems was quite advanced for pilots. Now with CBT training a pilot learns what s/he needs to know that is relevant to flying and operating, not engineering, the aircraft.

Why not the same with the other navigation and technical subjects?

Having said that, aviation training and testing is a lot more relevant than the knowledge expected of students in other professions where there seems to be a move away from 'bread and butter' to irrelevant learning - with a consequential drop in the level of competence of the individuals concerned.

Pilots are only trained to fly. Obvious you might say, but who trains them to manage and become management pilots within the airline 'business' ... ? No one unless they undertake a MSc or similar course in airline management. In later life this can be just as important as the flying, but management is not examined in any way and only really touched on during command training and by experience gained carrying out the job of flying a modern aircraft.

Maybe time to re-think the strategy for training pilots and look at the longer term, rather than just the operating of a complex machine?

[wiggy]

Thing is we're being told -" you are all managers now," but the end of the day you are still hurtling through the air at x miles a minute and if you are deficient in the "airplane pilot" -aspect of the job you will at some point get your backside bit., MSc or not

I'd actually argue that CBT is way too shortened these days, and there's sod all chance to do that old fashioned thing of gaining a real understanding of the topic ... I'm not on about the "old fashioned" engineering stuff like relays for essential AC buses, it's the lack of time available to really get into the guts of the modern stuff like autoflight modes and what they really mean that I think is a training shortfall.

As for the MSc..nice to have, once you've learnt everything about the aircraft, the route network, ops manuals etc (:ooh: ) but one outfit I know of tried to impose an a "own time" correspondence business course, didn't work, people frankly didn't have time to do....and that company certainly are not going to sanction all their pilots going off to do a "proper" MSC.

[simmple]

As others have said you need to get your head down, acknowledge that it's time out of your life when you could be learning, doing something relevant, pass the exam, then dump the irrelevant stuff and get on with learning how to be a pilot.
On a recent conversion I was horrified at the lack of information about the aircraft systems, concentrating on awful calls and SOPs but if you want food on the table you just get on with it

[Crash one]

If this is the calibre of up coming airline pilots, I'm rather glad that I'm 77 years old and unlikely to have to sit behind such morons.
Hopefully, by the time you are sitting in the left seat I will pushing up the daisies.

[jamesgrainge]

You've had some extremely thorough and valid answers from the likes of PM, Tryingto...and others, people who like you no doubt use apps, iPads, smartphones, etc, some of whom are graduates of scientific disciplines, many of them also pro pilots with thousands if not tens of thousands of hours under there belt....do you not think they might have just perhaps a clearer and more comprehensive view of what is actually required for the likes of the PPL/ATPL, further training and even routine line operations? I only ask because even though it seems you have yet to gain your PPL you seem somewhat convinced that everybody replying here is wrong and/or over the hill and out of date and you are the only one marching in step.


(Written on an iPad).

I've also had plenty of answers that explain how largely irrelevant and time consuming some of the material is, but i just have to accept it and get on with it. Why the totally unnecessary personal attacks is beyond me, simply because I don't agree with the (non existent) syllabus. If people spent more time actively suggesting what may or may not be better, and talked to the right people, and approached objectively change may happen more quickly.

As has been explained to me numerous times the same stuff is going to crop up at ATPL so it's better for me to learn it now, (which I have been the whole time people have been questioning my intelligence and aptitude) without issue. Quite why this thread hasn't died is beyond me.

[Meikleour]

This thread strikes me as simply the difference between learning something and accessing the same info from an electronic device. We all know that the younger generation seem to need to have their smartphones welded to their person at all times and therefore they assume that info needed can always be accessed. Of course the batteries never run down............................................!

PS to above: to all those who have kindly offered advice - why not just let the chap make his own mistakes? The learning experience will be much enhanced.

[jamesgrainge]

PS to above: to all those who have kindly offered advice - why not just let the chap make his own mistakes? The learning experience will be much enhanced.

Very true! My original asking came from the fact I revised only the questions in the book. When it came to the exam, the questions weren't the same, and the knowledge base didn't work. I just scraped a pass on Air law. Didn't want to repeat the same thing in the rest of the exams so wanted to get an insight into what was actually being examined. However, now i can answer the questions having made all the notes from the book without looking at the questions first. So really, problem solved,learn the subject, understand it pass with ease, move on. Even greater given the motivation now that learning it prior to ATPL will make ATPL easier. Still a little confused as to how someone thinks it's 2nd year degree and someone thinks it's about A-Level. Ho hum.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would say that the level of understanding required is sub-A-level, but the volume of material is nearer second year degree.

In other words - it's mostly about memorisation, and lots of it.


However, as you've already realised - question spotting is a mugs game. Learn the subject properly, then delve into question banks.

On met specifically - you will never know enough about it, but it's worthwhile trying to. I nearly got caught out by a sea fog today, sonetime this evening I'll get the books out and see what I forgot about how it forms.

G

[jamesgrainge]

Ghengis the engineer. Advection, airflow off a warm land surface over a cooler sea

Or tropical maritime air moving towards the pole over cooler ocean or meeting a colder air mass.

See I have been learning :ugh:

[Piltdown Man]

I'm sure Genghis knows the books stuff, as do the people who write the forecasts. But the problem is these things are not forecast. I think what happens is that slack surface pressure gradients unexpectedly allow air close to its dewpoint to flow over land. Then given a temperature drop of a degree or so and a pressure drop you get instant fog. I have seen fog like this form over the vale of Aylesbury and a few years later at STN. On both days the forecast was CAVOK and on both days the viz dropped to less than 100M with little notice. But the first occasion was the most stunning. The fog "front" moved at about 50 knots when the surface wind was only about was just over 10 knots. I saw it from just above the top of Dunstable Downs in a Ka18.

We also suffer from Fret where we live, again rarely forecast. Summer's day convection is to blame. Again slack pressure gradients and light winds generally prevail. It often starts with inland rising due to convection. As it does so it is replaced by cold sea air full of salt nuclei to move across a cooler sea inland. I'll also guess that the lower layers become more saturated as they move across the parts of the sea closest to the coast. The slight rise of the air as it crosses the coast (due to vertical pressure gradient and topography) reduces its pressure sufficiently to allow it to reach its dewpoint.

Whichever sort of fog it is, it is still scary if not forecast.

PM

ps. Here's a question - Does an air mass reduce in pressure as it is made to move? I haven't a clue. I'll guess it does.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't speak for anybody else, but with 3 pilots licences, 2 aeronautical engineering degrees, an average sized brain and a job that can require me to use any of that knowledge (and then some!) most days - I am constantly on catchup about theory and very regularly needing to look up, refresh, rethink a lot of it.

And if I'm honest, also pretty unsympathetic of anybody in either science or aviation (as I work in the overlap between the two) who really thinks that "this is irrelevant, I really don't need to know it". In this hellishly complicated field of aviation - we will NEVER know as much as it is beneficial to know. Absolutely none of us.


So, some point this week when I have time, I'll have my CPL met notes out, and if that doesn't work look deeper, to try and understand why I nearly got caught yesterday in a sea fog that formed in a 20+ knot south Westerly starting a few miles off the south coast, was advancing about half the wind speed, dissipating over the mainland but not the Isle of Wight, and all vanished an hour or two before dusk.

Which fortunately did not give me a serious problem, but had I not seen and thought about it building ahead of me, and not been prepared to do as much analysis as I could in flight, and significantly change my planned routing, might have seriously screwed my Sunday up.

And, strangely enough, I had no expectation of needing any knowledge about sea fog on Sunday, nor any material in the cockpit that allowed me to look it up. So I was totally reliant upon what was in my head.

G

[Mariner9]

Ghengis the engineer. Advection, airflow off a warm land surface over a cooler sea

Or tropical maritime air moving towards the pole over cooler ocean or meeting a colder air mass.

See I have been learning :ugh:

And what you have been learning evidently didn't help you to understand Genghis's fog. Which I suspect you may construe as the training given to you is not relevant.

However, could you not accept that what you are learning are vital building blocks to properly learning about met, such that you can use forecasts and reports and actual conditions outside the window to reliably assess flyability? (As Genghis evidently did)

[rarelyathome]

If you're going on to do your ATPLs, why not study to as much a level of detail from the start? You seem to be worried about a lack of a syllabus (and I have some sympathy) but the learning objectives for the ATPL exams are readily available. Have a good look at them and then you will see the breadth and depth of knowledge you need to gain.

There is much that you will disagree with having to learn (I still don't know why I had to learn which Annex for the Chicago Convention is which when it can be looked up - its not as though its something I'm likely to need in the air!) but that won't exempt you from having to do so. There is also a huge amount where it would pay to go deeper. In the end, it all depends on your approach - learn to pass the exams or be as professional as you possibly can.

[Genghis the Engineer]

because I don't agree with the (non existent) syllabus. If people spent more time actively suggesting what may or may not be better, and talked to the right people, and approached objectively change may happen more quickly.


This non-existent syllabus by the way? Okay, expressed as learning objectives, but basically the same thing.

https://www.bristol.gs/atpla/learning-objectives/

G

[jamesgrainge]

If you're going on to do your ATPLs, why not study to as much a level of detail from the start? You seem to be worried about a lack of a syllabus (and I have some sympathy) but the learning objectives for the ATPL exams are readily available. Have a good look at them and then you will see the breadth and depth of knowledge you need to gain.

There is much that you will disagree with having to learn (I still don't know why I had to learn which Annex for the Chicago Convention is which when it can be looked up - its not as though its something I'm likely to need in the air!) but that won't exempt you from having to do so. There is also a huge amount where it would pay to go deeper. In the end, it all depends on your approach - learn to pass the exams or be as professional as you possibly can.

Great advice. Thankyou.

[FC80]

PPRuNe is full of self-appointed sky gods, wannabes, sciolists, has-beens and never-will-bes with the occasional helpful and informative poster.

It's amazing how many of them pontificate from on high about subjects ranging from learning by rote every single symbol it's possible to encounter on an area weather chart to knowing the entire ATPL syllabus inside out, bemoaning the brats of today who only hit the bank enough to scrape a pass.

You seem like a fairly smart person - as you have realised, the signal to noise ratio in the various theory exams you will have to sit isn't always great.

A large amount of the content in some subjects (especially met) is helpful and important though, so I suggest learning the basics and more and trying to have a solid understanding of it is of value to any pilot. Learning the arcane symbology or the more boring and irrelevant details by heart - not so much.

As someone else suggested - do what you need to pass the exams, then do your best to keep learning and improving as a pilot to gain a more thorough understanding of the important stuff.

:)

[jamesgrainge]

PPRuNe is full of self-appointed sky gods, wannabes, sciolists, has-beens and never-will-bes with the occasional helpful and informative poster.

It's amazing how many of them pontificate from on high about subjects ranging from learning by rote every single symbol it's possible to encounter on an area weather chart to knowing the entire ATPL syllabus inside out, bemoaning the brats of today who only hit the bank enough to scrape a pass.


:)

Thankyou. It's poisonous sometimes in the rabbit Warren.:D

[Crash one]

If your object is to learn just enough to pass the exam, bear in mind that the exam you take will have somewhere close to 20 questions. However the exam papers are not just that same 20 questions, there are maybe 100 or more questions spread among several different exam papers. Which paper you are given will depend on pure luck.
The reason obviously is to ensure that the student studies the entire subject rather than just the few questions they have been swotting up on.
This may or may not be your intention, I personally couldn't care less.
You seem to prefer to ignore advice that you don't want to hear and thank those who seem to agree with you.
To get some idea how important the entire weather situation is to pilots, try walking into the club bar at any gliding club and listen to the deafening silence when tomorrow's weather comes on the TV, and try making conversation to the guy next to you at the same time.
If there is one subject that you could pick to complain about to pilots, meteorology is the wrong choice. Air Law, fine, who cares a damn about the Chicago Convention, or what spares I can carry across international borders, import tax free.
Theory of flight. Boundary layers, Benoulli and his mates, so what? Until, It's a hot day, are we going to clear those trees with a tank full of fuel and two of us in here? Am I going to stop before we hit the bushes?
And so on.
There's a lot more to it than passing exams and treating the whole thing as a waste of effort because YOU can't see the point.

[jamesgrainge]

To the OP. The background knowledge you learn for the PPL (if learnt correctly) will make your ATPLs 70% easier. The ATPL syllabus is simply an extension of the PPL syllabus, in far greater detail. The background knowledge you will have will allow you to sail through the ATPL exams whilst still having the understanding that you will require for a technical interview at a later date.

I won't deny that a large percentage of the ATPL syllabus is out of date and not relevant to the 21st century. However, the basics required for PPL will not only make the rest of your training easier, but they'll save your life too. Don't ever take the short cut, learn everything you can.

Just want to thank this poster for his input,as well as others, after considering what you all said I went and studied the material properly, and ended up getting 90%+ in the exams.

Now as I have started preliminary watching the videos on ATPL subjects in my idle hours, alot of what is said makes sense and isn't a big jump.

Thanks to everyone for contributing,you really made a difference. Happy flying.

[Bergerie1]

jg,

As others have said, much of what one has to learn seems meaningless. I remember when doing my flight navigators course having to learn about soft iron rods and how to swing a compass. But you never know when this knowledge might be useful - many years later I had to swing a compass on a boat in the Med. But I digress!

Meteorology is all about knowing the element in which you will spend your working life. The more you learn about it the safer you will be. There are many things in the atmosphere which can be a hazard to the unwary, not just cloud bases, visibility, wind, icing, turbulence, etc. The more you know the more likely you will be able to cope.

And you never know - you may come to love meteorology. I did.