Six sittings to pass all the PPL exams
So why hasn't the CAA complied with this
But even if they sort out the definition of a sitting there are more problems ahead. For example;
(1) The examinations should comprise a total of 120 multiple-choice questions covering all the subjects.
An alternative interpretation might be that each exam will be made up of 120 questions, covering all of the subjects in that exam area. But this will be a massive increase compared to the number of questions in the current exams.
I wonder if the "enthusiasts" who came up with these new rules ever asked themselves "What exactly is wrong with the number of questions in the current exams?"
Last edited by keith williams; 8th Feb 2013 at 10:20.
The document below was issued by EASA some time before December 2012
The new Standards Document 11, which included the material below was issued by the UK CAA in December 2012. So we can assume that it is the UK CAA interpretation of the EASA document.
The UK CAA "One day" definition is within the limits set by the EASA "10 days" definition, so it conforms with the new rules.
That is true only if the competent authority has established 10 days as their definition. But the UK competent authority (The CAA) has selected one day as the duration of a sitting.
I suspect that this will turn out be like so much of the other material in the standards documents....the CAA will publish it, but they will take on action to enforce any of it.
AMC1 FCL.025 Theoretical knowledge examinations for the issue of licences
(e) ‘Sitting’: a period of time established by the competent authority within which a candidate can take an examination. This period should not exceed 10 consecutive days. Only one attempt at each examination paper is allowed in one sitting.
(e) ‘Sitting’: a period of time established by the competent authority within which a candidate can take an examination. This period should not exceed 10 consecutive days. Only one attempt at each examination paper is allowed in one sitting.
"A sitting for the PPL and LAPL is defined as the attendance at an examination centre for the purpose of taking or writing a single or set of examinations in one day."
As Beagle says, a sitting can be up to 10 days...so the whole sittings thing becomes a bit meaningless.
I suspect that this will turn out be like so much of the other material in the standards documents....the CAA will publish it, but they will take on action to enforce any of it.
Last edited by keith williams; 8th Feb 2013 at 22:35.
but they will take on action to enforce any of it.
Lets say Blogs sits 2 exams on Friday and 2 on Saturday; does that constitute 1 day? A day is 24 hours, unless you specify a calendar day, and if the exams are all taken within that period the requirement has been met, but the dates will be different! Of course there may be some fine penciling and who would ever know? There could be the exam failed which is quietly forgotten about and another paper given. It all happens! If the student subsequently killed himself or someone else, the examiner would then by liable to get 6 months, which seems to be going rate!
Unenforceable rules are pointless rules!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when examination papers are handed out to organisations to run themselves
"Custodian of Exam Papers") who must be an authorised Ground Examiner.
Blogs sits 2 exams on Friday and 2 on Saturday; does that constitute 1 day
goes home and comes back in morning then that is two attendances, and
therefore two sittings.
Unenforceable rules are pointless rules!
2) The Ground Examiner
What you are saying is that you think the CAA have to police ATOs and
Examiners activities because these organisations/people are not capable or
trustworthy.
In that case the CAA should not delegate out this function but rather run
PPL Ground Exams themselves at set Centres on set dates.
A sitting is defined as attendance at an Exam Centre for one day.
AMC1 FCL025 para e):
(e) ‘Sitting’: a period of time established by the competent authority within which a candidate can take an examination. This period should not exceed 10 consecutive days. Only one attempt at each examination paper is allowed in one sitting.
a period of time established by the competent authority within which a candidate can take an examination. This period should not exceed 10 consecutive days.
If I am correct, then the above quote is EASA giving the UK CAA the authority to define the term "sitting" for use here in the UK, subject to a maximum duration of 10 consecutive days. This means that the "one day" definition has the authority of both EASA and the UK CAA.
If the term "competent authority" does not mean the national aviation authorities in each member state, what does it mean?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As KW points out the CAA have not put a "gold-plated" interpretation
on anything - they meet the exact EASA definition.
For PPL a sitting = 1 Day
For ATPL a sitting = 4 Consecutive Days (Mon - Thurs)
Why did EASA specify a sitting should not exceed 10 consecutive days?
(Remember this rule applies to theoretical examinations at all levels)
Possibly because, previously, some countries were allowing candidates to
take one ATPL exam a week and this was deemed to be too easy and
hence not a true reflection of knowledge gained.
For PPL candidates the only real difference, compared to JAA, is that they
should study so that they can take at least two subjects in one day.
(plus, I seem to remember, candidates have to be "put forward" for exam
by their ATO/RF so their knowledge will need to be checked prior
to actually sitting any exam(s).
on anything - they meet the exact EASA definition.
For PPL a sitting = 1 Day
For ATPL a sitting = 4 Consecutive Days (Mon - Thurs)
Why did EASA specify a sitting should not exceed 10 consecutive days?
(Remember this rule applies to theoretical examinations at all levels)
Possibly because, previously, some countries were allowing candidates to
take one ATPL exam a week and this was deemed to be too easy and
hence not a true reflection of knowledge gained.
For PPL candidates the only real difference, compared to JAA, is that they
should study so that they can take at least two subjects in one day.
(plus, I seem to remember, candidates have to be "put forward" for exam
by their ATO/RF so their knowledge will need to be checked prior
to actually sitting any exam(s).
Whatever the merits (or otherwise) of the requirement, it must be taken in the context of PPL training & testing throughout Europe. In all other EU member states (as far as I am aware) the PPL examinations are run by the national authority and, in this context, the requirement for all exams to be passed in 6 sittings is of little consequence.
The Aircrew Regulation was always going to be a compromise, with some States' opinions winning in some areas and nobody entirely satisfied. In the case of the PPL theoretical knowledge examinations, it was clearly not the UK's position that prevailed, not least because the CAA was unique in the way that PPL examinations were handled. In fact, it was pretty unique in the way that it generally ignored PPL training organisations unless or until they drew themselves to its attention (I'm not sure there's another authority in Europe that would have had to admit that it had no idea how many RTFs there were in operation!). The fact is that the resulting text satisfied the majority of member states and is now EU law - the UK will just have to live with that.
Given the requirements for PPL training organisations to become ATOs, it will be quite simple for the CAA to require that the management system documentation includes a process for managing theoretical knowledge examinations. The management process having been approved by the competent authority, continued compliance will then be a subject for audit and a requirement of continued approval. After all, there is already a requirement for the ATO to provide 100 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction and, before recommending him/her for the examination, to confirm that all elements of the training course have been completed to a satisfactory standard.
My understanding is that the 9 exams are currently in course of production and are due to be introduced in March/April, despite not being in compliance with the Regulation. It is also rumoured that plans are well advanced to do away with the current system of designated custodians and to centralise the PPL examination process, possibly on-line, which will better enable the monitoring of attempts and sittings, not to mention the security of the examination papers.
The Aircrew Regulation was always going to be a compromise, with some States' opinions winning in some areas and nobody entirely satisfied. In the case of the PPL theoretical knowledge examinations, it was clearly not the UK's position that prevailed, not least because the CAA was unique in the way that PPL examinations were handled. In fact, it was pretty unique in the way that it generally ignored PPL training organisations unless or until they drew themselves to its attention (I'm not sure there's another authority in Europe that would have had to admit that it had no idea how many RTFs there were in operation!). The fact is that the resulting text satisfied the majority of member states and is now EU law - the UK will just have to live with that.
Given the requirements for PPL training organisations to become ATOs, it will be quite simple for the CAA to require that the management system documentation includes a process for managing theoretical knowledge examinations. The management process having been approved by the competent authority, continued compliance will then be a subject for audit and a requirement of continued approval. After all, there is already a requirement for the ATO to provide 100 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction and, before recommending him/her for the examination, to confirm that all elements of the training course have been completed to a satisfactory standard.
My understanding is that the 9 exams are currently in course of production and are due to be introduced in March/April, despite not being in compliance with the Regulation. It is also rumoured that plans are well advanced to do away with the current system of designated custodians and to centralise the PPL examination process, possibly on-line, which will better enable the monitoring of attempts and sittings, not to mention the security of the examination papers.
It is also rumoured that plans are well advanced to do away with the current system of designated custodians and to centralise the PPL examination process, possibly on-line, which will better enable the monitoring of attempts and sittings, not to mention the security of the examination papers.
As for any computerised system being more 'secure', it would only take a few people to take screenshots before the security was compromised.....
If the term "competent authority" does not mean the national aviation authorities in each member state, what does it mean?
FCL.001 Competent authority
For the purpose of this Part, the competent authority shall be an authority designated by the Member State to whom a person applies for the issue of pilot licences or associated ratings or certificates.
For the purpose of this Part, the competent authority shall be an authority designated by the Member State to whom a person applies for the issue of pilot licences or associated ratings or certificates.
What you are saying is that you think the CAA have to police ATOs
An online exam system would be more preferable and those who administer them could charge a sitting fee however; that would require a decent question base which could be EU wide, but that's a step too far as it involves dirty words like standardisation; heaven knows someone will want to standardise the flight training next.
Last edited by Whopity; 10th Feb 2013 at 14:52.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "sitting" should be sufficient to sit all the exams in one go
Unfortunately it is not law as EASA says a "Sitting" is a period of time
for a candidate to take an "Examination" not for them to take
an "Entire set of examinations".
Maybe CAA thought one (very long for the candidate) day was sufficient
to take all PPL exams?
Maybe they thought it didn't matter if a PPL candidate, who wanted to
take all their exams "in one go" used up 2 or 3 sittings - as it still left at
least 3 more should they not be successful in any paper(s)?
Maybe they haven't considered it at all and a Ground Examiner should suggest it to them?
For the purpose of this Part, the competent authority shall be an authority designated by the Member State to whom a person applies for the issue of pilot licences or associated ratings or certificates.
A. Maybe CAA thought ........
B. Maybe they thought........
C. Maybe they haven't considered...
I'd go for option C every time!
Last edited by keith williams; 10th Feb 2013 at 16:05.
As one of the EU objectives is to avoid duplication surely any on-line exams would have to be operated by EASA; that would blow the CAA out of the loop and there would be one price across Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and that would be even better the same exam for the whole of Europe.
but what we really don't want is what i suspect we are going to get is nine ppl exams
but what we really don't want is what i suspect we are going to get is nine ppl exams
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Whopity
As one of the EU objectives is to avoid duplication surely any on-line exams would have to be operated by EASA; that would blow the CAA out of the loop and there would be one price across Europe.
The invitation to tender went out to industry for a very lucrative contract (100 Euros per question) to produce an initial database of 10,000 questions with the ultimate aim of providing 30,000 questions within 3 years. The short list of two was finally decided in favour of a European mainland software company NOT directly involved with training but who have experience in database development and management. The system was to be centrally managed with all national aviation authorities managing their own students locally in terms of provision of examination rooms etc but the control of the exams would lie with the contract winner.
They produced an initial trial database of approx 1,000 questions, with a very strict quality control process to ensure compliance with the Learning Objectives and then...............drum roll.............EASA turned around to the EU Transport Minister and said,"Err, can we have some more cash please?". "What have you done with the load we gave you last week?". "Err, we've spent it?" "FFS, on what?" "Bratwurst mit pommes weiss und ein grosses Bier.....oder funf.......no sorry, on re-writing all of JAR-FCL and all the other JARs". "That's not what we told you to do, now, is it?" "Well, no, but some really clever lawyer types told us it would be a really good idea if we did, as it would keep them really busy..........and they mentioned something about needing a yacht in the Maldives and a Learjet in the Cayman Islands".
So, net result, no cash available, contract binned, no centralised question bank and all national authorities to sort their own lives out, and one very p***ed off software company, haivng put a lot of resources into what promised to be a very nice earner (and which would probably have proved to be a far better system than we have to deal with now).
*Note artistic licence with dialog!
and which would probably have proved to be a far better system than we have to deal with now
The short list of two was finally decided in favour of a European mainland software company NOT directly involved with training but who have experience in database development and management..............They produced an initial trial database of approx 1,000 questions, with a very strict quality control process to ensure compliance with the Learning Objectives...
I have seen the quality of questions they produced. Probably the worst I have ever seen......
The problem with the existing CQB isn't that it does not comply with the learning objectives. It is that the questions are of very poor quality. This problem is compounded by the fact that many of the subject-matter experts in the FTOs cannot agree on what constitutes a good question.