ATPL exams are not fair!

[Macho97]

This may look like a personal outlet, but I just want to be objective.
EASA is supposed to be a standardised authority for Europe, so the exams it creates should be standardised too. But as I understood every EASA country has a big degrees of freedom. Yes, the central question bank is the same, but every country can choose the questions to use, deleting the ones not considered valid.
There's also a problem regarding the time limit of 18 months. In some countries you have lots of sittings, (I was reading in this forum that in Sweden you can even get personalised sessions), while for example in Italy you get 2 sittings a month and often you can't even successfully take part to then because they're already full ( also add the covid) , but the 18 months are equal for everyone.
The last issue is about the fact that the question bank is secret; what's the point of this? If the questions were 100% secrets, they fail rate would skyrocket, because no one would be able to pass without studying on the QB. So we have to rely on third parties websites that collect the questions ( from students feedbacks they say) and then kindly sell them back to us ( I wonder how them avoid copyright violations accuses from EASA). This said, wouldn't be better for everybody to get an official QB released from EASA where the students can do exercise? This way we could also avoid to find out at the exam that the QB has been updated to the most recent version overnight, and that our study was done on a wrong set of questions, like happened in UK ( I can't post the link to the article, but it was published by Bristol GS and the title was: caa refuse either credit exams introduce quality controls ). All this to say that we would need some kind of class action to get a more transparent a standardised way of testing, because in the current situation the ATPL looks a lot like a game of luck.

[A320LGW]

I can understand your frustration but i don't see the merit in EASA releasing their official database. This would totally nullify the integrity of the exams and thereby the qualification gained from them, too. What weight does an exam have if its questions and answers have all been provided by the examiner already?

EASA seem to have turned a blind eye to the question banks and so would argue you already have 'access' to the majority of the questions, the few you dont? Well this is supposed to be an exam afterall ...

And 3rd party question providers are often careful not to replicate questions 100%, that is partially why there is so much 'same question different wording' exam feedback.

All in all whilst frustrating, it is not difficult studies per se. Not when compared with medical studies for example, in fact i think they would jump at an ECQB type setup.

[paco]

Doctors already have a database!

The questions should be secret - but that only works IF the questions match the learning objectives, which they still don't despite a recent syllabus overhaul to which I was a contributor. It is frustrating for the schools as well!

[Alex Whittingham]

Can you imagine what would happen if EASA released the question banks under Freedom of Information? So many questions, hundreds certainly if not thousands would be found to be invalid, based on the wrong regulation, outside the syllabus, no correct answer, two correct answers, unintelligible. Why don't they release it? Go figure. Amusingly the UK CAA up to the end of last year used to repeat the EASA statements that there was a copyright (although they carefully avoided saying who owned the copyright) and copyright infringements would be pursued, the harshest penalties sought etc. Then the UK left EASA, and the CAA appropriated the EASA Question banks wholesale, renamed them the UK CAA Question Banks and all copyright admonitions disappeared. Go figure again. I'm waiting for EASA to enforce their copyright claims against the UK CAA with an injunction - whoops, no UK exams.

[Climb150]

FAA stopped publishing questions over 10 years ago. Whilst question banks now are common for FAA (just like EASA) the question are periodically reviewed to comply with airman certification standards. That means that questions must be specific, relevant and enhance safety.

I took the FAA ATP exam a few years ago and whilst it wasn't overly difficult, the questions were relevant and things you need to know.

Unlike EASA who seem like they want you to know the voltage of an A320 flap actuator!

[paco]

a320 - It's called passmedicine - Online revision for the MRCP Part 1, MRCGP Applied Knowledge Test (AKT), GP ST Stage 2 - Specialty Recruitment Assessment, Medical student finals, MRCP. It was used by a niece who I wouldn't trust with a pram yet now she's a doctor. Go figure.

Another point is that EASA are extremely generous with the 4 attempts at each exam - train drivers in the UK get one and in extreme cases 2 goes only. I have always thought that the maximum attempts should be reduced to two.

[Warlock1]

Maybe I am looking at this from a wrong perspective but if they were to release their questions database, where would this leave some of the ground schools which only focus on the theory?

[Genghis the Engineer]

his may look like a personal outlet, but I just want to be objective.
EASA is supposed to be a standardised authority for Europe, so the exams it creates should be standardised too. But as I understood every EASA country has a big degrees of freedom. Yes, the central question bank is the same, but every country can choose the questions to use, deleting the ones not considered valid.
There's also a problem regarding the time limit of 18 months. In some countries you have lots of sittings, (I was reading in this forum that in Sweden you can even get personalised sessions), while for example in Italy you get 2 sittings a month and often you can't even successfully take part to then because they're already full ( also add the covid) , but the 18 months are equal for everyone.

I can't see why this is a problem, so long as the 18 months and maximum number of sittings is identical, it's just a reflection of the different scales in different countries. I only did CPL writtens in the UK and had a fraction of the opportunities ATPL candidates had - it was fine, I just planned for it.

The last issue is about the fact that the question bank is secret; what's the point of this? If the questions were 100% secrets, they fail rate would skyrocket, because no one would be able to pass without studying on the QB.
To force you to actually learn the subject, instead of memorising the questions. Same with university exams, school exams, etc. And quite right too.

So we have to rely on third parties websites that collect the questions ( from students feedbacks they say) and then kindly sell them back to us ( I wonder how them avoid copyright violations accuses from EASA).
No, you have to learn the subject.

This said, wouldn't be better for everybody to get an official QB released from EASA where the students can do exercise? This way we could also avoid to find out at the exam that the QB has been updated to the most recent version overnight, and that our study was done on a wrong set of questions, like happened in UK ( I can't post the link to the article, but it was published by Bristol GS and the title was: caa refuse either credit exams introduce quality controls ). All this to say that we would need some kind of class action to get a more transparent a standardised way of testing, because in the current situation the ATPL looks a lot like a game of luck.
It's fine if you actually learn the subject, and just use sample questions for practice.

If your approach to becoming a professional pilot is to simply memorise the minimum information and parrot it with minimal understanding, you don't belong in a professional flying environment.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Alex Whittingham

I work in the university world, where we manage this with systems of external examiners, who review exams, marking, etc to insure common standards across the sector. It works, albeit that it puts significant burden on those people. If this isn't going on within flying TK exams, this is a problem - but it's still not an argument for publishing the questions.

[RichardH]

Having both sat & written exams for my previous (non aviation) profession these exams are bloody disgrace & embarrassing especially for a so called 'professional qualification'. As stated they give learn objectives then ask/do something different without telling anybody & the 'system' seems to get worse every time there is a modification/update. The aviation authorities seem to have a vested interest in you failing as it generates income for them - remember CAA stands for Cash Again & Again when you fail the exam & they are in denial as to how bad it is.

[Alex Whittingham]

Ghengis, sadly RichardH is correct. EASA have very poor quality control and in many cases you couldn't have passed the exam unless you had seen most of the questions before. Questions can be wildly outside the syllabus, sometimes after 30 years teaching I can't even answer them, There are so many examples I could give you.... how about the role of squitters or echo protection circuits in DME? The closest LO is probably "Describe the principle of distance measurement using DME in terms of a timed transmission from the interrogator and reply from the transponder on different frequencies", but how would anyone, ATO or candidate, ever guess this was required knowledge from the LO? These questions have made it through several layers of EASA 'quality control' then into exams. Even if the questions are objected to and eventually withdrawn the damage is done because we have by then included squitters and EPCs in the ATPL training manuals, and of course they don't tell us when questions are withdrawn. They should hang their collective heads in shame.

The end result, of course, is that the ATPL theory courses get more and more complex trying to meet the challenges of the exams as well as the syllabus. We even, sometimes, have to include 'half truths' in the material to meet dodgy LOs and questions. The icing on the cake is that EASA 'subject experts' now use ATO manuals as a reference for questions, and so the circle of disinformation widens. Its a challenge.

[RichardH]

Exactly Alex which is why with some regret I am retiring from TKI this year as I can no longer put up with this crap.

[PFD]

RichardH

Exactly the way I feel I have taught in 4 different ATO's and still going. I do not want the question bank CAA or otherwise, open to all, but this is what I have found over the years, and even more so with QB2020

1. Questions outside the LO and when I say outside, I mean from a different subject sometimes. RNAV questions in Instruments etc.
2. Questions with 2 right answers.
3. Questions with wrong answer marked as right.
4. Questions not in Level 4 English. Either very bad grammar or Shakesperean in quality with words that would fox Stephen Fry.
5. Questions that do not have any relevance or content in ANY of the common learning materials.
6. and finally, since the existence of the internet, questions that have clearly been trawled up from the bottom of the internet barrel, and which are so obscure, they are meaningless.

In every other exam that I can think of GCSE's, Degrees etc the learning material is recognised and certificated. You learn the material and understand it (hopefully) you practice tests based on real past papers, and after the exam, at least the Teachers/Instructors/Lecturers get to see the paper and are able to verify that they are fair and valid questions.

All that is going to happen over the next few years, is that students will yet again feed question banks, allowing those who simply have a good memory, to "Learn the question" instead of learning the subject and passing on merit.
It is at the very least fraudulent, that the CAA (who incidentally had never seen the new question bank while it was being produced I'm informed) charge customers for a flawed inaccurate question paper, which if they then fail, they have no right to see and if they appeal (paying even more money) they still don't get to see the questions and are told "You're wrong it was a fair question" I could do that without getting out of bed.

The system is seriously flawed, and the arrogance and immorality of the CAA beggars belief.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well yes, that's fair. The JAA exams I passed circa 2008 were bloated with excess material, and often contained poor answers that forced you to think your way into the examiners head, rather than simply provide correct answers to questions, and from what I've heard it has got worse. By comparison, I did an FAA CPL a couple of years ago and it was totally the other way - the TK/written was in most technical aspects frankly much too shallow, although it compensated in large part by the strict and relevant oral. I also do not accept the need for the massive exam load imposed upon people (in Europe) now, which is even worse than the daft exam loads I had to pass 13ish years ago.

So there are two "no excuses here". There's no excuse for not learning the subject, but no excuse for the mismanagement and bloating of the present TK and exam system.

[rudestuff]

Maybe Alex should hire some Savants to start failing tests? 4 failed tests each (per subject) should build up a nice little database of genuine questions...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/08/total-recall-the-people-who-never-forget

[paco]

And questions that would kill the candidate if they ever used the recommended procedure in the question....

[rancid]

Gents, believe me, remember the question without knowing anything, he/she will not pass the interview, even though she/he get through, they will not succeed in the career. Especially if you're in complexity small Helicopter World, everybody know each other.

[Genghis the Engineer]

paco

I'm curious, do you have some specific examples in mind

[paco]

How do you land in trees? Gear down......

[Sholayo]

"I can understand your frustration but i don't see the merit in EASA releasing their official database. This would totally nullify the integrity of the exams and thereby the qualification gained from them, too."
Well.

The thing is that we have pretty known 2rd party who claim they have full coverage in their application. Now - from what I know and you can read that all over EASA internets there is solid bunch of people who do learn from that bank and not from handbooks. Most of these internets claim that indeed that 3rd party bank has VERY SOLID coverage of actual questions seen in exams.

And technical interviews? They are just proof that all these 14 exams are a joke. You can have FAA ATP style exam and no one would die anyway.

[A320LGW]

Which 3nd party application makes this claim if I may ask?

[I-WEBA]

Genghis the Engineer

you have a TS in front of your T/O runway what would be the correct action to do?
1/ Delay TO
2/ Wx radar tilt -15°
3/ use Flex T/O
4/ Turn off PWS <—— correct

[Banana Joe]

I remember a question in Human Factors asking to define a group of family celebrating the mother's 40th birthday. How the heck is that related to flying an airliner is beyond me.

Yes, I had this question in the actual exams, and yes it affects the final results.

[Warlock1]

I think we should start a new thread, solely based on the stupidest questions we have seen on the exam 😊

[Banana Joe]

The answer was first category group or something like that. Go figure.

[RedDragonFlyer]

There are also those questions that are just strange.

I had a question which asked for the function of the corpuscles in HPL. The answers all seemed plausible as they were all functions of different things in the body. Is there a need to include such rare/ seldom used vocabulary when so many who sit the exams are not native/ fluent English speakers? I thought we were studying to fly a plane and not medicine.

I was very thankful the CAA I did my exams at had some pretty hefty dictionaries with some of the ludicrous vocabulary used. You had to be careful though as you'd break your foot if you dropped one of them.

It's definition 2a if you don't know - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corpuscles

[mgahan]

I do not understand this (younger generation) need for question banks. The purpose of an examination is to find, by asking a number of selected questions, if you know and understand the material detailed in the syllabus. . To know and understand the material in the syllabus you need to study that material and probably also engage with others who have the knowledge and experience to tutor you.

To my mind trying to "pass" by learning from a bank of potential questions is highly unprofessional.

Would you apply the same process to the practical skills of flying?

[Samten]

to MGAHAN:
"...by asking a number of selected questions..."
In my opinion, here is the main problem. Who is going to ask them? Live person or computer?
If you use a computer, then you need a question bank (it may be secret or available to anyone, that's another story).
If you use live examinator to test your candidates, then you run into the problem of personal judgement. Every teacher has at least several questions, which are very difficult to answer. And every examinator can make your life very difficult on the exam. Yes, normally examinators are reasonable people, but every rule has an exception. You said you are from younger generation... now imagine being tested by 70-years old guy, who seems not to like you from the moment he saw you :-)

[Theholdingpoint]

Go and try the "younger generation" questions, then tell us what you think about them.

[paco]

mgahan - this is partly a problem with the modern education system and the unrealistic generation of expectations (and I'm sure some schools provide answers to get their numbers up) and the fact that you cannot pass these exams on knowledge alone, as evidenced by the number of CFIIs we have dealt with who went straight in.

[Banana Joe]

mgahan

It's simple, very simple. The questions do not reflect the learning objectives, at all. Two head of very important European Ground School have just said it multiple times in this topic. Why is it hard for you to understand?

[Sleepsleep]

Dropping my 2 cents, I am still confused at why these theory exams use question banks. Why not emulate school exams like HKDSE and just make a new exam every month or two, with standardized sessions and new questions?

Even as (I consider) an avgeek myself after checking some question banks some of the questions are just uggh stupid. I can't figure out how would knowing the density of JET-A1 makes you able to save a crippled aircraft.

[PFD]

Which system is required in order for the FMS to control vertical navigation?
1. Pitch Controller
2. Auto Throttle
3. Electronic Flight Bag
4. Flight Director

[jmmoric]

How do you land in trees? Gear down......

Read an article about it a few years back, in a swedish magazine.... cause they have a lot of forests.

Quite interresting, but the rule of thumb was to fly the aircraft to the ground before flaring, never flare above treetops.... difference is the angle you impact the ground at.... once you've avoided the trees ofcourse.

Exams may not be fair, I once got 3 questions changed from "not correct" to "correct", and an additional two was met with the reply: "Leave it, you've passed now". I decided a pass would be ok.

[bulldog89]

PFD

Auto throttle

[PFD]

So can you explain how an aircraft without auto throttle does VNAV? Or how Autothrottle is able to maintain VNAV ALT? Remember we are talking CAT aircraft usually A320 or 737 sizes minimum.

[Archer4]

I'll take a guess.

4. Flight director

[Denti]

Sleepsleep

That is simply basic knowledge that is needed every single day on the line. Remember, energy content and therefore measurement in the aircraft is in weight, fuel bill comes in volume.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sleepsleep

There's plenty of nonsense, particularly my pet hate of terminology questions, in PPL/CPL/ATPL TK exams, but that isn't an example. Personally I must do a calculation involving fuel density most weeks, and this sort of built-in knowledge is important for carrying out quick sanity checks on my calculations, vital in ensuring I don't make gross errors.

(0.82 for AVTUR, 0.715 for AVGAS, and no I didn't need to look that up).

[paco]

"I'm sure most airline pilots would struggle to answer some of those questions ...."

LOL! This is from one of my students:

Bumped into an ex Cathay Dragon guy at Skyborne while doing exams (lot of crews back in the U.K. and having to convert HK licenses). Long story short having kept in touch, two current A330 crew failed multiple exams in the first batch they sat from QB2020 and they have nothing else to do apart from study.

[FullWings]

It was bad enough when I did my ATPL in the 90s. Being an electronics engineer, I had to essentially ignore all of my personal knowledge and learn the explanations that the CAA thought were right. I could understand why things like Air Law needed memorisation as there was little logic, but if you used sound scientific principles in many of the technical subjects you ended up with the wrong answer.

Can’t imagine how difficult it is these days...

[FlightDetent]

I've been through mine in 2001. It is sad to read the whole thing still is a functional prototype.

BTW, anyone remembers "Four Forces Aviation"?

[RichardH]

Remember briefly using Four Forces Aviation ground school notes for a time. Didn't seem to last too long, if I remember correctly there might have been some legal or copyright issues?

[PFD]

bulldog89

Okay, so I just tried VNAV via FMS on a 737, without autothrottle, no problem, although i had to control the throttle obviously. So if someone is saying the right answer is autothrottle, they're wrong. If anything it's pitch control, but of course the better answer would be the pitch channel of the autopilot. Trouble is, a student might know that and won't have to pay for another exam 😒

[Genghis the Engineer]

In 1993 I was one of the first people to take the new HPL exam for the PPL, which was newly introduced. I just learned the material and passed.

There was a chap at the club who failed it at about the same time. He was, of course, a medical doctor

[Sleepsleep]

Genghis the Engineer

Okay that makes a lot of sense. I get it now thanks

[bulldog89]

PFD

This question is exactly why I DID use the banks (yes, more than one).

Anyway, it is also clear that the question is referring to a fully automated VNAV, so both auto pitch and throttle are needed. It is also to be said that it would be possible to design a fully automated VNAV system without controlling the pitch angle, but not without auto-power/thrust control.

[PFD]

Now you’re just trying to justify your answer. Where in the question does it say Fully Automated and what aircraft is it? Also could you explain how VNAV PTH is possible at varying air speeds without controlling pitch angle? I’m intrigued.

[bulldog89]

I don't have to justify anything to you.
I answered correctly because I've finished my exams last year, using the banks.
This being said if I remember correctly on the 737 as an example the vertical profile is managed with alt, vspeed, airspeed and elevator deflection.
It would also be possible to design a VNAV system based on the AoA or any other useful reference (es: accelerometers), but not without controlling the engines. Anything without engines control is not an automated VNAV system.

[Alex Whittingham]

I think the point is, Bulldog, you are arguing a posteriori because you know what the marked correct answer is. We have to put ourselves in the position of a candidate who does not have that knowledge, but otherwise understands the system, and that would make that a very difficult question to answer, likely resulting in the 'pitch controller' being chosen.

[Banana Joe]

PFD

It will maintain VNAV path regardless of airspeed until it reverts to VNAV SPD. In VNAV ALT it would hold altitude until the stall. So I agree with you, but there is no logic in ATPL exams.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

You can control altitude with an auto-throttle but not, necessarily, a pitch controller.

If you use the throttles only, the aeroplane will - with a bit of lag - maintain the trimmed speed, and climb or descend according to the excess or deficiency of thrust. (Steady state climb performance is dictated by how much more - or less - thrust than gravity you have, and not the pitch angle of the aircraft or power of the elevator. Otherwise you could steadily climb quite nicely in any glider just by pulling back on the stick.)

Pitch alone, on the other hand, is inadequate because the thrust setting can still endanger the aircraft. For instance, the thrust may be to low to safely climb the aircraft without losing speed and stalling, but the aircraft pitches up anyway. Or you may have too much power and you exceed VNE as you pitch down for the descent. You still need to control throttle setting by hand, but you don't have to control pitch by hand, so long as the aircraft is trimmed to fly at the speed you want it to.

In reality you would use both pitch and power for a VNAV controller (pitch to prevent "long-period" oscillation round the climb angle and power to establish the climb rate) but if you could only use one it would have to be power.

[Alex Whittingham]

But 'thrust' is not encompassed in the term 'autothrottle', Cap'n, you can set manual thrust. This is the 'thrust' of the argument. Climb angle (FPA) is defined by (thrust-drag)/weight. This is why gliders cannot climb like a powered aircraft, no thrust. They are converting kinetic energy to potential energy.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Sure! You could set manual thrust in the same way you can set manual pitch trim.

But thrust would need to vary, however, unlike trim, for climb and descent.

And remember, the question asks what the most basic requirement of an automatic VNAV capability is.

Which is the most basic: auto-throttle only (one system) or pitch controller + pilot controlled throttle? (two systems - for the sake of argument, pretend the pilot is glued to the aeroplane.) In other words, which requires the least amount of interaction with the aircraft?

It's auto-throttle alone.

Yes, both methods will produce a working VNAV controller, but this is yet again one of those questions where you have to get into the head of the examiner and choose the most-right answer.

Which brings us to the point above that the question banks aren't fit for purpose because they shouldn't require mental gymnastics like this.

(Also you are quite correct about climb performance being excess thrust over weight, not gravity. Ooops. Been a few years since I've done this.)

[PFD]

bulldog89

Hmm so you’re saying that if you are in VNAV with the autopilot on, on a 737 and you are controlling the throttles, that it isn’t automated?

[bulldog89]

Just stop. The question is not type specific, and ATHR+manual pitch is just as valid as AP+manual throttle.

Being type specific I've already told you that on the 737 the VNAV profile is obtained without using the pitch angle as an input.

[bulldog89]

Alex Whittingham

To be honest I've picked the correct answer on the first try: then the banks confirmed I could do the same in the real exreal exam.

The point is that an instructor is trying to use this question as an example of ""wrong answers in the exams", but this is not the case. It's an ambiguous question for sure, but in my opinion the correct answer is (as usual) just "the most correct answer". Again, this is exactly why the banks are made for.

[PFD]

bulldog89

You clearly don’t understand what happens in VNAV especially in VNAV PTH. What about the aircraft that have a VNAV mode and no auto throttle?

But from your other replies, yes you’re right, the question is ambiguous. It talks about a ‘system’ and Autothrottle certainly is, so maybe it’s the right answer in the question writers head, who knows, and there’s the problem, who knows?

Now tell someone who didn’t just “Bank it” and got 74% that the exams are fair.

BTW, just because the banks (ATPLQ?) say it’s the right answer, doesn’t mean it is.

[bulldog89]

Please, tell us again how it would be possibile to auto climb and level with constant speed in VNAV without an automated engines control.
From the study material is crystal clear that VNAV is to be intended as a fully automated flight, not some form of hybrid systems with 3/axis control and manual engines management.

Anyway, for the third time, the 737 doesn't use the pitch angle to control the VNAV path, AT on or off.

Edit: Wait a minute. I've never said I've just banked it...I studied and used the banks, it's a different thing.

[redsnail]

I fly a Challenger 350 with Collins Proline 21 avionics and autopilot. We don't have autothrottles. We can use VNAV for descent and climb but we have to "be the autothrottle". As we also do RNAV approaches (LPV etc) and therefore VNAV must be engaged, I'd say you can use VNAV without autothrottles....

Now what the ATPL exams want is another thing, they are not based in reality most of the time.

[bulldog89]

Which system is required in order for the FMS to control vertical navigation?
1. Pitch Controller
2. Auto Throttle
3. Electronic Flight Bag
4. Flight Director

It's in the question...

[PFD]

I didn’t say “you” banked it. Anyway. How do you explain that VNAV appears in the pitch channel window of the FMA and the Autothrottle is only ever on the left and can only do a thrust or speed (IAS or Mach) are you still sure that pitch is not in VNAV? Have you asked your old Inst instructor? Just constantly referring us to the bank answer in an ambiguous question isn’t the answer.

We all know what EASA questions are like, they won’t say autopilot or pitch channel, that is too easy, so pitch controller sounds more EASAeze. If you seriously think pitch changes are not required in VNAV, you need to have another good read of your learning material.

[bulldog89]

From my previous post:
on the 737 as an example the vertical profile is managed with alt, vspeed, airspeed and elevator deflection.It would also be possible to design a VNAV system based on the AoA or any other useful reference (es: accelerometers)

My learning about it has been verified multiple times with open answer/oral exams. No need to ask "my instr instructor" or to "check my learning material".

Still waiting to read how the FMS can control the vertical navigation without controlling the engines.

[Alex Whittingham]

Well I'm very pleased for you, Bulldog. You sound very confident. Good luck!

[rudestuff]

bulldog89

In the cruise it's quite simple: Pitch controls altitude, thrust controls speed. Auto or manual thrust is irrelevant.

VNAV in a Boeing is a complicated beast and understanding the FMAs as they change is vital. Pitch can be used to control Speed, Altitude, Rate of climb, Flare etc.. Whilst Thrust can also be used to control Speed, Altitude, Rate of climb etc - the only difference being the phase of flight.
It's a subject that (in detail) belongs in a type rating course, not the ATPLs.

[bulldog89]

Manual thrust, level flught: T needed 70, T set 10. FMS unable to maintain altitude, even with no speed profile set, VNAV disengages.

[PFD]

rudestuff

Hi, thanks for your input. I don’t wish to contradict you, but in what mode does thrust control altitude? Auto thrust modes are Thrust (N1, Climb, TO/GA ETC) Idle (During Level Chg descents and at the end of FLARE) and speed control (MCP or FMC). Anything to do with ALT or Path is Pitch Channel of the Autopilot. VNAV rate of climb will either be similar to Lvl Chg, where AP controls the IAS/Mach and a climb thrust is set, or the FMC will set a particular rate of climb in pitch combined with an Autothrust Speed.

You’re right of course, it is very type specific, but generically it’s 737 or A320 and something has to be taught to the students. I tend to concentrate on the follies of VS mode, you know, the danger of over or under speeding, and the fact that unlike Level Change, it doesn’t look specifically for an MCP set altitude, unless you are going that way.

[PFD]

bulldog89

Yes because YOU have mishandled the manual thrust. If you observed what was happening as the speed was dropping, the pitch angle would have been increasing to increase AoA and lift, until you approached the stall. I’m having to assume that you were asking VNAV to maintain a flight level but withought the leg information I don’t know, and how can you have an FMC VNAV profile without it calculating speeds?

[meleagertoo]

mgahan

Totally agree.
It is an utter travesty that exams can be passed simply by rote-learning the question bank and makes a complete mockery of the entire ground training system. One can only question the professional attitude of candidates who think this is the correct way to pass an exam, and fear for the level of their theoretical knowlege.
It scares me when I hear kids saying "what's that got to do with aviation" - that demonstrates they don't even understand the reasons they're supposed to be absorbing knowlege, a far more fundamental failing in attitude even than whingeing they can't get access to the answers to save them learning the hows and whys.
There sounds to me to be an excessive amount of 'entitlement' going on here, people complaining they don't need background knowlege ("why do I need to know the density of Jet A1" for instance - ffs!) to enter a highly technical profession where a massive knowlege base - but expect it to handed them on a plate for the asking.

[bulldog89]

PFD

Dear PFD, this is my last message about this question as you're just avoiding the point. YOU posted a question saying "for the FMS to control", not me, not you, not "I'll just manage the throttles", just THE FMS. So, please stick to rule #1 of these stupid exams and RTFQ. In case you've already read TFQ, please tell us how is it possible for THE FMS to control climb, cruise and descent without controlling the engines.

And again, on your beloved 737 changes in pitch are just a consequence of the AP trying to correct the vertical speed it sensed, changing the elevator deflection to regain a suitable vertical speed to reach the target altitude. And no, you don't change elev defl to chase a target pitch angle, you do it to increase/decrease AoA and the Vspeed. You'd be able to finish a mechanics of flight course without even mentioning the pitch angle, it's quite irrelevant.

[rudestuff]

Hi, thanks for your input. I don’t wish to contradict you, but in what mode does thrust control altitude?
It's not desirable, but let's say you descend using FLCH: pitch controls speed, AT goes to IDLE then THR HOLD allowing you to adjust the thrust levers to control RoD. If you add too much power you'll actually stop the descent, and you're inadvertently controlling altitude with thrust. Add even more power and you'll actually start to climb even though it was supposed to be a descent, and with no MCP altitude to ALT CAP on, it'll keep going until it finds its equilibrium Altitude.

It manifests itself in the SIM on single engine work. I've seen someone descending, getting close to the platform ALT with manual thrust, pitch for speed. They noticed the speed was a little low and added power but it hadn't yet alt capped - so all that did was arrest the descent. When they saw that the speed hang changed, they added more power and started to climb. 🤦‍♂️

[PFD]

rudestuff

After THR HOLD, if you wanted to push up the power, wouldn't you have to disarm the AT though? I agree with everything you've said there by the way, and agree that if you manually increased thrust, to control speed the AP would pitch up, but the throttle isn't really "controlling" altitude, just influencing it, don't you agree? Anyway, this whole debate highlights the fact that some ATPL questions are debatable, literally, and therefore ambiguous.

At the end of the day, there are still many aircraft that have an FMS VNAV mode and no autothrottle.

[PFD]

bulldog89

Blimey mate, you're all over the place, you seem to be saying that VNAV DOES include pitch control, which of course it does. You also seem to think that the AP doesn't hold an altitude, just a VS.

If you do RTFQ, it says for the FMS to control vertical navigation and since you've been told that there are aircraft without autothrottle many times, that do have an FMS and VNAV, I can only assume you are just choosing to ignore that. Good luck trying to fly a complete VNAV profile without changing the aircraft pitch angle at any time, meaning attitude of course, and although I now teach Pilots, I am an ex Aircraft Engineering Technician, and seem to recall pitch angle being mentioned a few times. Maybe my apprenticeship of 3 years was a little more extensive than yours? let's just agree to disagree, and good luck flying without pitch control 😉

[Percy van Staden]

Genghis the Engineer

Always good to have these values committed to memory for the purpose of sanity checks. We have, however, found that the actual exams give values that differ from the ones commonly used in practice. One such example:Given: Fuel density = 0,78 kg/l Dry operating mass = 33500 kg Traffic load = 10 600 kg Maximum allowable take-off mass = 66200 kg Taxi fuel = 200 kg Tank capacity = 22 500 Litres The maximum possible take-off fuel is?

A. 17 550 kg

B. 17 350 kg

C. 21 900 kg

D. 22 100 kg


*with permission from Status Aviation - Home (http://www.statusaviation.com.au/index.php/questionbank/home)

[Central Scrutinizer]

The ATPL exams (or any other pilot theory exams) are a bloody joke and everybody knows it.

People just go through them, forget and move on. It's frustrating to hear to the people currently doing them, but that's the best advice: suck it up, finish them as quickly as possible, then move on!

[Central Scrutinizer]

rudestuff

That's true, but it's still a bit of a stretch to say that you can control ALTITUDE using THRUST in the FLCH mode. What's more accurate is saying that you can control VERTICAL SPEED using THRUST. As you say, indirectly by modulating the thrust, and therefore the vertical speed, you could theoretically maintain an altitude like that. But this is a retarded way to fly and nobody does this (or nobody does this intentionally at least...)

[Central Scrutinizer]

After THR HOLD, if you wanted to push up the power, wouldn't you have to disarm the AT though?

No, in THR HOLD the servos are disconnected leaving the levers free for the pilot to manipulate. No need to disarm AT.

[PFD]

Thank you for that. I knew that was the case on Take Off, didn’t realise it was the same in descent.

[rudestuff]

Central Scrutinizer

Agreed. You would never operate like that, I was merely trying to show that all flight modes are a combination of pitch and power and that what-controls-what depends on the FMAs at the time, and ultimately that VNAV is pretty complicated!

[FlightDetent]

Percy van Staden

Clear-cut 17350 from me. Where did I go wrong?

The incorrect answers are picked smartly on this one, btw.

[Percy van Staden]

Capn Bug Smasher

I respectfully differ from the point that question banks and the examination should not require "mental gymnastics".

Theory examinations have but a few hours and a one dimensional platform to test your knowledge, understanding and application of an interdisciplinary body of knowledge.(Which btw includes advanced comprehension and communication of problems using the English language.)

Some mental gymnastics will therefore be inevitable.

[Percy van Staden]

FlightDetent

Nothing wrong with that answer.

Plus the fact that you picked up on what we term "calculated incorrect" options shows your understanding of what is asked and the theory.

The question is aimed at teaching a specific concept and that is why you have two answers that could be correct if you are unsure about what to do with the taxi fuel.

[FlightDetent]

Percy van Staden Now you got me completely lost. At your #81 you provided that particular question as an example of what is wrong with the QB, right? If so, what is it?

Looked perfectly fine to me, and carefully crafted. All the other three answers are valid calculation results if you mix the kg / l and taxi fuel +/- not in the good way. Or not mix them at all.

[funflyer1]

I won't be surprised if the intention is to filter the people of becoming a professional pilots from the first place.
The market is so saturated with unemployed qualified pilots that every surplus will bring the industry to a deeper crisis.
After all, the CAA in every country is run by active or retired professional pilots who are well aware of the reality around them.
From the other hand, no one can stop you from trying to achieve your dream and spending your money.

[paco]

Well, the original intention was to make the pilot licence the equivalent of a degree - I think the phrase was "we don't want pilots to be morons"

[BillieBob]

After all, the CAA in every country is run by active or retired professional pilots who are well aware of the reality around them.Now that has got to take the prize for the funniest comment ever!

[Percy van Staden]

FlightDetent, at 81 I was making the point that the CAA exams often use variables different from what you commit to memory (as is shown by the QB question aligned with CAA questions). Nothing wrong with the question itself and certainly not with the QB.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Percy

Nah man, by "mental gymnastics" I meant "trick questions."

Plenty of call for mental gymnastics without intentionally confusing or tricking the candidate!

The FMS argument above is an example.

[PDR1]

Negan

We've been through this before - it's an apples and oranges thing. Degrees (indeed all level 6 quals) must involve an element of original research. That's not really appropriate for pilot qualification. The pilot quals are closer to Professional qualifications like accountants, doctors and lawyers, demonstrating absolute mastery of a specific body of knowledge and the ability that expertise accurately and reliably in a real-world situation. Note that there are degrees in accountancy, medicine and law, but you can only achieve the professional status through the professional pupilage and exams (and it can be done with or without the degrees). Heck, even engineering isn't just a matter of having the degree - a Professional Engineer (whether as a C.Eng, the European Eur Ing or the colonial PE registration) is more than just a degree.

[patconn21]

As it stands, the MCQ format as we know it is here to stay, whether one agrees with its merits or not. It’s theoretical, so anything within limits, theoretically, can happen. Therefore in my opinion, as a current Integrated ATPL student, it’s imperative to understand the theory. There is no place for rote learning here. The banks should be used to supplement knowledge. I hope to find myself in the right seat after acquiring the knowledge to safely say I know what to do as a result of acquiring the theoretical knowledge and applying a common sense approach.

We need to understand the theory. Get my head around that fact and progress.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Negan

Those combined ATPL/degree programmes certainly exist in the UK and USA, I don't know about other countries.

[Genghis the Engineer]

PDR1

4 year MEng + 2 years further training, + 2 years professional practice.

Or 3 year BEng + 1 year MSc + 2 years training + 2 years practice.

A degree does not qualify somebody to practice as an engineer with any independence, any more than you'd want somebody who'd passed all the ATPL TK, but done none of the actual flying and skill tests to be in charge of a passenger aircraft.

Which to be fair, you pretty much said, I was just expanding.

[PDR1]

Absolutely, although those definitions of C.Eng are rather out of date - there is no proscriptive definition of the time required in further training or professional practice, merely a specification for the competences that must have been exhibited (this is where CEng and PE diverge). Also the degree is not mandatory - it is the "standard route". The standard requires "Underpinning knowledge and understanding to the level of an MSc supported by a BSc" but it allows that UK&U to be achieved and evidenced in ways other than the actual degree(s). That is the "individual route" (in that it requires individual assessment of evidence rather than acceptance of a standard qualification).

The last time I had the query run was 2 years ago, but it suggested that of the registrations between 1990 and 2018 only 20% were achieved by the standard route. There was a time when you could sit the Engineering Council exam as a means of verifying UK&U, but I believe that was formally terminated in 2011.