8 Fails at the ATPL's

[Mammagoose]

I currently have 8 fails and 2 sessions left. Should I quit and restart from 0?

[VariablePitchP]

I currently have 8 fails and 2 sessions left. Should I quit and restart from 0?

Yes.

Sounds blunt but that number would scare most airlines off, not unreasonably.

You need to ask yourself, is it your method of learning that has caught you out do you think, and thus by being better prepared you could pass? If this is the case, I’d start again, you can still have a good chance of a job if you get a decent set next time. Or just go for your CPLs, then work up to ATPLs with a bit more practical experience, if you’re that kind of learner.

However, if you tried your hardest and that was the result then maybe this just isn’t the right career path and you’re better suited to other things. Only you can answer that, and there’s no shame in either answer, just potentially saves you a huge amount of time and money to make that decision now, rather than after taking a load more exams and being in the same position.

[lucille]

Or just stick with the career paths in aviation which don’t require an ATPL. While these jobs don’t pay as much, they usually offer you far more job satisfaction and fun.

I know lots of happy crop dusters, instructors and bush pilots who made this lifestyle choice.

[rudestuff]

I currently have 8 fails and 2 sessions left. Should I quit and restart from 0?
I'm not sure if you're allowed to quit and start again, I think you have to let the 18 months lapse. Personally I'd take the last 8. If you pass it'll put you 18 months ahead albeit with ropey scores. That 18 months could put you the right side of a recession.

You need to ask yourself some hard questions:
Realistically are you going to do much better if you start again? Is this the career for you? - ATPLs are the easy bit. Jobs are getting scarcer and interviews tougher. Passing a type rating requires constant work and you'll be studying every 6 months for the rest of your career.

[Livesinafield]

ATPLs are the easy bit.

Really? You're kidding right? I've done 3 type ratings and the ATPL's were easily the hardest part, full of silly pointless material aimed at just catching you out, you just have to learn how to pass them. Type ratings are I feel a little easier as the spectrum of questions is a bit more exact, that said and I don't mean to be rude or forward but maybe this isn't the career for you? You will as others have pointed out be tested regularly throughout your career (albeit not as intensely as your ATPL) Not entirely sure as to what exams every 6 months other posters are referring to,could be country dependent, We do a tech refresher every 6 months but its an easy exam and usually done at home

[Dan_Brown]

Before JAA when it was the UK ATPL, you had 12 months to complete the the licence from the first subject pass. A non UK CPL holder, for eg., had to pass 14 subjects. At the first attempt you could only fail 2 "major" subjects and 2 "minor" subjects from those 14. You had to pass those fails within the 12 months but one resit IIRC. Three months between resits. Mostly written, not multi choose. Our Nav esams included the introduction of basic INS principals and operation, for the first time.

The majority of the content was of the nature which you would never use in flying again. How to work out an intercept of another a/c for eg., WTF would you need to intercept another a/c in civil aviation??

The authorities wanted to know if you were able to absorb a certain amount of information then spit it out on demand. Does that make you a good pilot or show intelligence? I say no. What one needs now is money.

If my memory serves me correctly. A bit of maybe interesting information to some and completely unless to others.

[Thakis]

I'm curious and I want to know, since I haven't taken any exams yet, how doable is it to pass the exams and even score 90% without having access to a question bank? Is it a necessity? Because it seems that it is. Did the OP use one?

[Grav]

I'm curious and I want to know, since I haven't taken any exams yet, how doable is it to pass the exams and even score 90% without having access to a question bank? Is it a necessity? Because it seems that it is. Did the OP use one?

To pass decently the ATPL exams in my opinion you need to prepare 80% on the question bank and 20% on the books. Obviously this percentage varies between the subjects, for some of them is almost 100% question bank. Awful way to study, but that’s it. after i completed my exams (90% average) i studied on the books to learn better the concepts.

[finestkind]

Not really on topic but hopefully will receive a chuckle.When I was undertaking a course, many years ago, for what, if memory serves me, was a SCPL I was told a number of stories, by the gentleman that ran the school. Apart from his personal stories, WWII fighter pilot, exchange posting post WW11 to the Sates, career in commercial airlines(TAA If memory serves), Physics Prof at a Uni etc. were the run in’s he had with what was CAA and the really bureaucratic let alone professional incompetency’s. Delightful chap but I am not 100% certain I have his name correct so will not state. One of his stories was on a young chap going for his CPL or SCPL and failing. Father (at that time a Check and Training CAPT with Q) not overly impressed and said son work harder. Son did so, resat, failed again. Father less impressed, tutored son. Son resat, failed again. Father again not impressed but having tutored son was aware of his knowledge so decided to sit the test with son and both failed. Father approached the testing body and was directed to the individual that did the marking to enquire about his and his son’s results. Individual said in a somewhat exacerbated tone, “it’s no mistake as I cannot make a mistake as a template is used and placed on the answer sheet” (the days of a,b,c or d) as he flourished the template. Father than enquired where are your other templates which received a dumbfounded look. It was than explained that there were five different sets of test’s which surprisingly required five templates. The “maker” than threw his hands in the air stating it wasn’t his fault as he was only filling in as he had been doing so for the last eighteen months.

[steelcraft]

So you need an ATPL to have a meaning-full and financially rewarding career in Aviation?? You have got to be kidding.

[bulldog89]

I'm curious and I want to know, since I haven't taken any exams yet, how doable is it to pass the exams and even score 90% without having access to a question bank? Is it a necessity? Because it seems that it is. Did the OP use one?

No. You won't get in the 90s without a question bank. You'd be lucky even to get a 75.

[Oddball77]

I've done a few ATPL subject resits in my life, currently sitting LHS of an A320. I've never been to an interview before where they asked about my ATPL exam results. I've just been asked whether or not I have an valid ATPL.

[I-WEBA]

I'm curious and I want to know, since I haven't taken any exams yet, how doable is it to pass the exams and even score 90% without having access to a question bank? Is it a necessity? Because it seems that it is. Did the OP use one?

Unfortunately you need, without it you could be the most prepared one in the room but there is high risk of fail. Why? Bcs some questions are really stupid, some of them are written in a strange english or simply bcs some of them are not covered in books. Luckily not all of them are like this, but in an exam with few questions, just a few of them and you are bordeline

[Airgus]

My experience was to read the books, go through all of them and see if there's anything you can't understand. Most of the topics would be calling your attention, some of them would make you feel clueless, when you face something like this, get curious, there are many resources from online videos, flight instructors, fellow pilots/students, other books, to back up classes. The question bank is a nice tool to confirm that you are feeling comfortable to go for a test, but if you can't understand it then it would not make any difference.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I currently have 8 fails and 2 sessions left. Should I quit and restart from 0?
I would certainly completely re-assess your learning methods.

G

[speedrestriction]

No. You won't get in the 90s without a question bank. You'd be lucky even to get a 75.

Hmmmmm, I managed a 93% average without the question bank albeit a few years ago. When things start going wrong in an aircraft for real unfortunately they don't come in the form of multiple choice questions. Better to understand the theory and get 90% than memorise the question bank and get 95%. If you have properly applied yourself and failed eight subjects then you might have to reconsider your chosen path. If you haven't applied yourself then get off PPruNe and into those books!

[VariablePitchP]

So you need an ATPL to have a meaning-full and financially rewarding career in Aviation?? You have got to be kidding.

OP is Italian, what financially rewarding jobs are there in European aviation that do not require an ATPL? Instructing? Nope, and that’s about it really. Net Jets etc in the corporate world won’t hire you if you can’t get an ATPL so you’re stuck flying 172s really.

Hmmmmm, I managed a 93% average without the question bank albeit a few years ago. When things start going wrong in an aircraft for real unfortunately they don't come in the form of multiple choice questions. Better to understand the theory and get 90% than memorise the question bank and get 95%. If you have properly applied yourself and failed eight subjects then you might have to reconsider your chosen path. If you haven't applied yourself then get off PPruNe and into those books!

Just from your posting history, you did your exams over a decade ago? If that’s the case then that was pre the EASA exam silliness of today. Whilst the content hasn’t changed (in itself part of the problem...) there is just no way you can pass the exams remotely well without using the bank. And given 99% of the people you’re competing with to get jobs do use the bank, what are you trying to achieve by not, martyrdom?

I’d much rather use the bank and sit in a jet than not use it, fail, and return to my office job proud in the knowledge that I can work out the angles between two lines on a polar stereographic map better than my course mates could :O

OP, get yourself onto Bristol GS before you do anything else. If you can get to 85/90% on there, might be worth having another shot. Trust us, that’s what everyone else will be doing...

[Alex Whittingham]

mammagoose you are welcome to email me at [email protected] with the full story and I might be able to give you some guidance

[bulldog89]

Hmmmmm, I managed a 93% average without the question bank albeit a few years ago. When things start going wrong in an aircraft for real unfortunately they don't come in the form of multiple choice questions. Better to understand the theory and get 90% than memorise the question bank and get 95%. If you have properly applied yourself and failed eight subjects then you might have to reconsider your chosen path. If you haven't applied yourself then get off PPruNe and into those books!

I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.

My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...

Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.

Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.

[bulldog89]

OP is Italian, what financially rewarding jobs are there in European aviation that do not require an ATPL? Instructing? Nope, and that’s about it really. Net Jets etc in the corporate world won’t hire you if you can’t get an ATPL so you’re stuck flying 172s really.



Just from your posting history, you did your exams over a decade ago? If that’s the case then that was pre the EASA exam silliness of today. Whilst the content hasn’t changed (in itself part of the problem...) there is just no way you can pass the exams remotely well without using the bank. And given 99% of the people you’re competing with to get jobs do use the bank, what are you trying to achieve by not, martyrdom?

I’d much rather use the bank and sit in a jet than not use it, fail, and return to my office job proud in the knowledge that I can work out the angles between two lines on a polar stereographic map better than my course mates could :O

OP, get yourself onto Bristol GS before you do anything else. If you can get to 85/90% on there, might be worth having another shot. Trust us, that’s what everyone else will be doing...





Wait, I didn't notice he's from Italy...
BGS is good for studying, but I recommend AE and ATPLQ if you take your exams in Italy.

[VariablePitchP]

I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.

My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...

Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.

Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.

Brilliant post, couldn’t agree more

[TheEdge]

I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.

My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...

Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.

Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.

Best post ever in this thread....Couldn't agree more.

[giovari]

To pass these exams, you have to do practise with the latest quiz database. Focus you attention only with quiz..I did it for 8 hours per day and for 2 months before to try the exams.
And at the end I passed all of them in 3 sessions...first attempt with an average of 93%, lowest score 86%.
after that I started to study for real..! Remember..to pass these exams the only way is do quiz...you will study all important stuff adter passing exams.
good luck and don’t give up

[Hawker400]

Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.

Brilliant post!

[deing]

AviationExam, best 150 bucks you will spend

[Parson]

Mammagoose - I'd question (no pun intended) your groundschool and/or method of revision. I suggest you need some professional advice and, if you haven't done already, I'd take Alex up on his offer at #20.

[flocci_non_faccio]

When things start going wrong in an aircraft for real unfortunately they don't come in the form of multiple choice questions. Better to understand the theory and get 90% than memorise the question bank and get 95%.

I'm curious what ATPL knowledge you're planning to apply if anything ever starts going wrong in an aircraft for real.

To the OP: the ATPLs are merely a hoop to jump through. They have close to zero practical application in the real world. Unfortunately for you, I can't imagine any (reputable) employers of ab-initio cadets will look at anyone with 8 fails in their ATPLs. That's not to say you won't be able to get a job, but I think it's highly unlikely you'll find your way into an airliner with minimum hours.

[jowong1]

To the OP, think back in your A-level days (or whatever the equivalent is for school leaving exams in your country), did your teachers tell you that "everything that will be in the exams is in your textbooks". While that statement is technically correct, you didnt only study off of your textbooks. There were homework, class notes, quizzes, prior year/semester exam paper, work books, etc....They are just like the QB in this monster ATPL. No shame in using it if it helps. Ask me how much I remember from my A-level, how much of that stuff I have used in the "real world"... the answer is not much! But that doesn't mean A-level was completely useless. It's a hurdle to jump thru to get a school leaving certificate. It would be tough to get your first job with bad grades.

Your learning wont stop just because you get thru these exams either.

[Sleeve Wing]

Maybe I'm old fashioned but what comes out of all this confusion, having flown for nigh on 60 years in all departments including 20 years as an airline captain, it appears that exam setters are losing the plot. I don't think I could get my head around some of the "requirements" they ask these days.

What I CAN get my head around is how to comprehensively operate an aeroplane to satisfy my employer and turn him a profit. I understand the environment I operate in, be it weather or regulation.
I understand too what the engineer needs to know if I put an aircraft unserviceable, so that he can fix it; how to use ATC to achieve the shortest, most fuel efficient sector. I even try to understand the pressures that ground-staff have to put up with minute by minute.

Importantly, I think I also know how to get the best out of my mate in the right hand seat so that we have a successful, stress-free day even when things go against us. I don't need the accumulating, unnecessary BS that seems to constitute the academic side of a commercial pilot's career these days.
Perhaps some of the "setters" should get out into the real world and realise what is really needed to run a safe, successful operation day by day. The CAA inspectors used to do it and their contribution was welcome on board. Your fleet inspector became a friend.

My impression has been that, as each new exam setter came along, he/she would try to outdo the other with an even more remote question or unreal situation. Perhaps, as in the 70s, it's time for a new approach again.
Or maybe the commercial aviation business has been changed so much out of recognition that the time to hang my headset up has finally come.........

[paco]

Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! My beef is with some of the tech reviewers, and with EASA who do seem to want medioctiry.

[jez d]

@Mammagoose, if you haven't already done so, you should take up Alex Whittingham's kind offer and contact him.

[Contact Approach]

I’d take Alex up on his post. He’s probably the most qualified along with Paco to give advice.

[Mammagoose]

Thanks everyone. Thinking to start again from 0. I didn't put the right effort...

[Sleeve Wing]

..

>> Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! <<
Not wishing to spoil your view of the "real world', Paco, but I spent a lot of time in my real world. For example I didn't get enough time off to make 3,775 posts......

As a number of contributors have stated, a lot of the exam content is quite useless when finally out into the true environment. Do trick questions seek out the mind of a a future, clear thinking young operator ? Or maybe only the sort of individual apparently needed in the current Civil Service these days, according to the newspapers ! I've worked along side both types. You don't need me to tell you who is more likely to get up to speed the quickest and become a good guy in either seat.

My "beef" is not with the question writers per se but those who choose which of those questions they feel are appropriate for exam papers.
Perhaps my brain spent too much time up to 40,000 feet as opposed to the restricted serendipity of the rotary world.
Still, welcome to the future.......

[paco]

My real world includes ATPs for helicopters and aeroplanes, plus 8700 accident-free hours, from IFR to firefighting - hardly restricted - and what does the number of posts have to do with anything? I might as well question the restricted view at 40,000 feet just watching the world go by.....

You will have to take it up with EASA because they are the ones who reject a perfectly good 9-word question and change it into something with 3 sentences., although, to be fair, the idiots who started it were the JAA, who should hang their collective heads in shame for screwing up what could have been a world-class system. They have tried to "improve" things with the new LOs, but the quality of questions seriously needs to be addressed.

[parkfell]

..

>> Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! <<
Not wishing to spoil your view of the "real world', Paco, but I spent a lot of time in my real world. For example I didn't get enough time off to make 3,775 posts......


My "beef" is not with the question writers per se but those who choose which of those questions they feel are appropriate for exam papers.
Perhaps my brain spent too much time up to 40,000 feet as opposed to the restricted serendipity of the rotary world.
Still, welcome to the future.......

Whilst you might have accumulated tens of thousands of hours in the cruise, the more demanding parts of flight are normally associated outwith the cruise?

Sectors flown are also a measure of experience. My first airline aircraft was a Shorts 360. Flew 1086 hours with 1409 sectors. A wonderful experience.

Flying a B737 with a sector up to 6 hours [Red Sea] in the end before retirement.

Both were real world as was yours & PACO’s.
The number of pprune posts made are clearly irrelevant. You probably have more time on your hands during long periods of the cruise....

[Sleeve Wing]

Seriously wondering whether just to let this go with a sigh ? Suffice it to say that I won't bore you with my total hours and number of types as only a proportion were high altitude cruise.
Besides a fighter background, high and low level, perhaps though I could include a few thousand hours instructing at all levels including commercial school i.e. TIRE, X, aeros, formation, maintenance testing, even joyriding.
Or maybe I'm not sufficiently qualified to contribute to the age-old argument of what does it take to make a good pilot, both academically and professionally ?
I just know the sort of chap and his background that I would want to work with .....and it doesn't include anoraks with 95% passes in all 14/15 subjects...... but can't fly.

[parkfell]

Seriously wondering whether just to let this go with a sigh ? ....(gap)...
I just know the sort of chap and his background that I would want to work with .....and it doesn't include anoraks with 95% passes in all 14/15 subjects...... but can't fly.

but can’t fly : discuss

Whilst there are clearly some quality civilian instructors who are teaching to a high standard, the mainstay for (UK) commercial schools historically (last century) were RAF/RN QFIs A2 who would mainly retire from the Service aged 38, and were not (really) interested in the airlines.

With the continued contraction of the RAF since say the 1990s(?) the number of CFS trained pilots reduced and so the ‘passing on’ to the next generation of what is now mainly junior civilian FIs is much reduced.

The overall training quality is suffering since not only are the FIs less experienced, you have to question just how well some of them were taught in the first place...(contentious perhaps?)

The fundamental technique of selecting an attitude and trimming accurately must be taught well irrespective what course is being conducted.
I would suggest that this is the main reason for SLEEVE WING observation...then of course, there is over reliance on automation.
RAW DATA ILS anybody.......?

[paco]

Raw data ILS? Bring it on......

[TheBat]

I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.

My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...

Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.

Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.
One more thumbs up for this post. Excellent!

[TheBat]

Aviationexam is absolute NO-NO with questionbank 6 (referring to a previous comment)

[Sleeve Wing]

>> Raw data ILS? Bring it on...... <<

Something we can both totally agree on, paco. :ouch:

>> but can’t fly : discuss <<

I like your argument, parkfell, and also totally agree with your summary regarding expertise in present day schools
I taught at Oxford Air Training School (now OAA) from 1970 to 1974. All of us then were from all branches of military aviation, 100+ instructors inc. 35 flying.
We encouraged studes to be good aircraft operators, to be ahead of the game, to be situationally aware and in control of both their aeroplane and their environment.
However we are now in the realms of thread creep and this won't solve the basic problem of poor examination content and on how many good future pilots we could be losing.

[Sleeve Wing]

To make the point with regard to the type of inane question in present examination papers, perhaps I can refer you to the "Reverse thrust" thread in this forum.

>>> Question: Once the blocker doors are fully deployed, with an increase in rpm, which of the following statements would be incorrect ??

a. Forward thrust from the hot gases would increase.
b. Forward thrust from the hot gases would decrease.
c. Reverse thrust from the blocked air would increase.
d. TGT will increase.

I thought a. would be correct, as with blocker doors, the cold airstream only is reversed and not the hot air. So if you increase the RPM, then surely the forward thrust from the hot gases would increase in-line with an increase in turbine speed, although the overall net thrust would be in reverse due to the larger amount of cold air thrust from the fan? Or am I reading this incorrectly? The suggested correct answer is b. <<<


My immediate thoughts are "So what ?"
It's all so obvious when one is flying the aeroplane, whether fitted with reverser doors ( P&W JT8s) or cascades vanes (CFM56).
All I'm worried about at this stage is ingestion, compressor stall or asymmetric reverse !

[Alex Whittingham]

If you read two posts on in that thread you will see that this is not an exam question.

[Sleeve Wing]

Thanks, Alex.

Always had the greatest respect for your organisation.

Missed that. Knee jerk reaction. I stand corrected.

RTFQ !

[Winemaker]

Sleeve Wing, you say:
So if you increase the RPM, then surely the forward thrust from the hot gases would increase in-line with an increase in turbine speed
You then choose:
a. Forward thrust from the hot gases would increase.
which is correct by your own analysis. The question asks you to choose an incorrect answer.

[Dan_Brown]

I have a question.

How many aircrew would be able to sit and pass the ATPL exams they sat and past, say even 10 years ago?? Not very many I would wager. So with that in mind, how practical are these examinations (apart from Air Law) in the "real world"? I would be unlucky to get anywhere near a pass, if I resat the things now..

As for specific Type technical examinations, I firmly believe in an "open book" policy. Why you ask? It is more important to know where to find the information from the manuals than clutter our minds storing specific useless information. The odd limitation is important of course. KIS, Keep It Simple!!

As sleeve hinted at, do we need aviators or academics to fly a/c? I've been an aviator, not an academic. "You can teach a monkey to ride a bike but you'll never teach it to read road signs" was one of the comments from several instructors, at the ground school I attended, when a quite well known and a very good aviator finally passed at the third attempt!! .:}

[parkfell]

I would add Meteorology to the list of essentials, especially the decodes.

The ATPL material was described to me once as high volume, low grade material. The GNAV is the one with the fewest facts, but does require a degree of understanding to pass it. And of course no plotting these days.
Many moons ago, before my professional pilot exams, I sat the CAA ATCO (no.54 course) exams. Navigation was an exam subject, including plotting with both air & ground plotting!

Provided you have sufficient grey material [5 GCSEs including English, Maths, Physics & 2 ‘A’ s] or [five Scottish NAT5 & 3/4 Highers] [or equivalent] and put in the TIME & EFFORT, then there is no reason why first time passes with good marks will not follow. A focused approach.

As for taking the exams again, you will be surprised how quickly it all comes flooding back....one day refresher per subject perhaps?

[Sleeve Wing]

>>> Sleeve Wing, you say : <<< (quote)

Not me, Winemaker ! :=
This was all part of the comment from vw_nutter as the originator of the "Reverse Thrust" thread.
I didn't attempt to find a "correct" or "incorrect" answer to such an inane question.
My comment was the final three lines. :ok: