Six sittings to pass all the PPL exams
Lets leave it to the discretion of the Ground Examiners as they do now.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there opposition to one exam covering all subjects?
After all, flying, whether it be for leisure or professionally, requires the participants to use all relevant skill-sets at the same time. You have to use your knowledge of Operational Procedures, Mass & Balance, Met, Navigation etc. when flight planning, in exactly the same way as you may need to use Air Law, Aircraft Systems and more Met and Navigation knowledge during flight.
Having trained in several professional areas during my ageing years, I have found the best exams to be NON-multiple choice, scenario based exams, using "real-life" situations with questions based around those situations.
Personally, I would like to see one exam, with two or three "flights" including a pre-flight regulatory phase, a flight planning phase, an en-route phase, a technical phase, a diversion phase and any other phases that may be considered relevant. The student's knowledge of all areas involved in the operation of light aircraft could be tested, with a mix of multiple choice and calculated solutions.
Surely, potential PPLs should be able to cope with the 'stress' of one exam covering all the areas that they could face in a single flight?
Or am I being too hard?
After all, flying, whether it be for leisure or professionally, requires the participants to use all relevant skill-sets at the same time. You have to use your knowledge of Operational Procedures, Mass & Balance, Met, Navigation etc. when flight planning, in exactly the same way as you may need to use Air Law, Aircraft Systems and more Met and Navigation knowledge during flight.
Having trained in several professional areas during my ageing years, I have found the best exams to be NON-multiple choice, scenario based exams, using "real-life" situations with questions based around those situations.
Personally, I would like to see one exam, with two or three "flights" including a pre-flight regulatory phase, a flight planning phase, an en-route phase, a technical phase, a diversion phase and any other phases that may be considered relevant. The student's knowledge of all areas involved in the operation of light aircraft could be tested, with a mix of multiple choice and calculated solutions.
Surely, potential PPLs should be able to cope with the 'stress' of one exam covering all the areas that they could face in a single flight?
Or am I being too hard?
One has to ask the question, What is an EASA PPL and WHY do we need one? In reality, there is no such thing as an EASA PPL apart from the label, because each State is different. We don't need one because ICAO Annex 1 makes suitable provision for recognition of all others. So we must ask what is this nonsense all about? Either EASA should provide the means to have a common European Licence or leave well alone and comply with Annex 1, a declared EU objective! Failing that just give everyone an EASA sticky label, job done.
AOPA claims to be making representations, but historically they were the original cause of the problem!
AOPA claims to be making representations, but historically they were the original cause of the problem!
AOPA claims to be making representations, but historically they were the original cause of the problem!
Beagle, its not Rubbish, if it had not been for Ron Campbell there would never have been a JAA PPL. There was no intention to include the PPL in JARs until AOPA suggested it. In those days they controlled all Examiners and believed that by inventing the Registration process they would be allowed to control that too, thereby increasing their membership. Then their agreement was torn up and the mess began.
It is complete rubbish as you well know.
In recent times all you seem to have done is to bad mouth both AOPA and your previous employer, the CAA.
Perhaps now is the time to come up with constructive, rather than destructive comment and suggest some sensible proposals?
In recent times all you seem to have done is to bad mouth both AOPA and your previous employer, the CAA.
Perhaps now is the time to come up with constructive, rather than destructive comment and suggest some sensible proposals?
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Feb 2013 at 19:59.
Perhaps now is the time to come up with constructive, rather than destructive comment and suggest some sensible proposals?
There was no consultation with anyone before the CAA launched its new PPL exam proposals. However, AOPA is in direct discussion with the CAA at the very top level to soften the impact where we can. The IAA has already raised the subject for the next FCL Implementation Forum and if we find that the new CAA exams are disproportionate (e.g. requiring more questions than the AMC calls for, or making the 'sitting' period shorter than 10 days), we will be requesting justification. The current industry-wide call is for 'CAA gold plating' to be stripped away, so that nothing more demanding or restrictive than EASA AMCs is in place.
Regarding the JAR-PPL, the idea was to modularise the whole licensing process. However, Whopity's colleagues rushed into a ridiculous haste to introduce JAR-level requirements in the UK long before they were ever needed. Chaos then ensued and the person repsonsible was encouraged to take early retirement.
The NPPL was born, much to Whopity's criticism, as a direct result of the CAA realising that its JAR-FCL PPL was wholly disproportionate and was killing PPL training - AOPA was then asked for an alternative, which we delivered.
Anyway, good luck with representing your own objections, G-RICH. Have you voiced them to any aviation organisation at all? It might help your case.
Regarding the JAR-PPL, the idea was to modularise the whole licensing process. However, Whopity's colleagues rushed into a ridiculous haste to introduce JAR-level requirements in the UK long before they were ever needed. Chaos then ensued and the person repsonsible was encouraged to take early retirement.
The NPPL was born, much to Whopity's criticism, as a direct result of the CAA realising that its JAR-FCL PPL was wholly disproportionate and was killing PPL training - AOPA was then asked for an alternative, which we delivered.
Anyway, good luck with representing your own objections, G-RICH. Have you voiced them to any aviation organisation at all? It might help your case.
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Feb 2013 at 22:27.
Having been closely involved in the early days of the JAA, I can confirm that the original intention was not to include requirements for the PPL but to leave it to national authorities to regulate in accordance with ICAO Annex 1. It was only intense lobbying by AOPA UK that resulted in the PPL being included in JAR-FCL 1 at the last minute and, in my view, without adequate consideration. However, this is all a red herring in the current context as the PPL would have been brought under the EASA umbrella irrespective of its status under the JAA.
The behaviour of the UK CAA since its twice bungled introduction of the Aircrew Regulation provides ample evidence of the arrogance and incompetence that now pervades the upper reaches of Aviation House. There is now a clear strategy to cast the flight training industry adrift while endeavouring to retain as much of its previous power as possible, whether or not this complies with EU law. The issue of the PPL exams is only one symptom of a much wider reaching disease.
The behaviour of the UK CAA since its twice bungled introduction of the Aircrew Regulation provides ample evidence of the arrogance and incompetence that now pervades the upper reaches of Aviation House. There is now a clear strategy to cast the flight training industry adrift while endeavouring to retain as much of its previous power as possible, whether or not this complies with EU law. The issue of the PPL exams is only one symptom of a much wider reaching disease.
