Helicopter exams delayed

[Alex Whittingham]

The CAA have just advised us FTOs that their plan to introduce helicopter specific ground exams in January 2003 has been put on indefinite hold.

They say the 'interim procedure' will continue TFN. This means that heli pilots will continue to do the fixed wing exams, omitting fixed wing performance and P of F and including instead a 'JAA style' helicopter P of F paper.

[Q max]

.. for learning and understanding the subject ... don't rely on having passed some exams.

So you might as well learn arbitary stuff about aeroplanes - it's just general knowledge you should have ... and a filtering process (it could almost be in Latin and achieve the same) to keep the wages high.

The idea that you can be considered adequately knowldgeable by getting 75% of some pretty arbitary questions is disturbing - a very innefficient process in terms of having well educated pilots.

Very sad to waste the effort that so many put in .... I feel sorry for prospective Commercial Pilots.

Are there actually any VITAL points of understanding in the 25% of wrong answers, which IS considered acceptable?

Practical exams, vital knowledge points only and 100% pass mark!

[Irlandés]

Qmax,
I couldn't agree more. I've often run into the attitude 'So you scored 95%? You studied 25% too much!!'. I think there should be an extra subject called 'Knowing what you don't know'. We could get Socrates to correct it (his famous line 'All I know is that I know nothing, and even that I'm not sure of!' ;)) Methinks a lot of people would fail it. As for having to get 100% to pass, you need to have some leeway for the obligatory TOTALLY AMBIGUOUS AND IDIOTIC QUESTIONS that seem to be standard fare in most exams I've ever done. Otherwise it would have been 'So you scored 100%? You studied 30% too much!!'. :D

One thing though, the effort that those put in to fully understand a subject rather than just pass an exam is not wasted. It may not be reflected in their exam results but it is definitely not wasted! Per ardua ad astra!

Irlandés

[Whirlybird]

As far as the CPL(H) exams go, it isn't quite that simple. I took the old CAA ones, so things may change with JAA, but I doubt it. Some of the information was, if not useless, certainly not very useful - like learning by heart formulae you'd be unlikely to need in real life and could look up if you did. Some of the questions were so worded that you could read them 3 or 4 times and still wonder what on earth was meant. :confused: Some were plain wrong, if you knew more than a little bit (just enough for the exams) about the subject. The best (or do I mean worst)example of that for me was the Human Performance exam; since I have a degree in psychology, with physiology to second year, I knew that a number of the answers were in reality: "it depends", or "sometimes", or "that's something the experts argue about frequently". But I wanted to pass the exam, so I learned the CAA's answers. I remember being told (hi there Alex!) that radio hams had similar problems with the Radio Aids exam. And I just scraped through the Helicopter Principles of Flight, despite having done more work for that than any of the others because I was interested. I only actually passed because I remembered and queried one question - about the height of the ground cushion. I got an answer from the CAA saying the book they used ("The Helicopter and How It Flies", by John Fay - can you believe it?) had their "right" answer, but after some research they'd found that most of the standard texts agreed with me, and they were giving me the extra marks and a pass. But I would have said that was an "it depends" - on the surface you're hovering over etc.

So, Q Max, I'd say you're partly right, but only partly. I learned a lot of useful stuff, it's true. I'm not sure what use it is for an R22 pilot to learn about flying airliners at 37,000 ft, and the details of machmeters and jet streams, and how to correct for compressibility, and use a CRP5 practically in my sleep. But I didn't mind any of that. What I did mind is having to spend time learning and remembering formulae and rules that no-one could remember long term, that I've now forgotten. And spending a lot of time learning to jump through CAA hoops rather than think for myself. And since time is not infinite, some of that time could have been better used.

[misterbonkers]

but have any of you looked at what we are supposed to know? and some of the questions we get asked?

Non-type specific for examle and yet they ask type specific questions - so your bound to get those wrong if you aint flown the type and it differs from the norm.

Before you start saying 75% is too low, maybe you should look at the actual exams themselves.

100% men from the states have come over the pond and failed JAR exams.

I agree the system is wrong in the way it goes about, but i do believe that 75% is a good level.

[Q max]

I suggest the exams should relevant and easier but require 100% (95% perhaps).

[Irlandés]

I'm not sure, I've met some bloody good pilots whose academic ability wasn't their strong point, guys who find it really hard to study and get good marks. On the other hand there're guys who will breeze any exam, wax lyrical on the most obscure points of PofF and still be a living danger to man and beast before even approaching a helicopter.

It's like looking at someone's IQ, it's a very limited way of looking at a specific type of human intelligence, and in the process the geniuses may well slip you by.

Irlandés

[fuel2noise]

There used to be an expression in RN flying training circles "chop for job security" i.e. the more students that fail to get through the more they need the pilots already in!

The jolly old CAA exams are, to me, not much different. True, you don't need to be a genius to fly an aircraft but at least the 'difficulty' in jumping through the exam hoops (they are not that difficult just bloody awkward and often utterly spurious) stops the market being flooded with qualified pilots...... no shortage of pilots = low pay (or in the rotary wing world even lower pay).

So, pain in the but or not I would vote for the status quo... at least until I retire;)