exam errors
 

Can any of you scholarly pilots tell me the magnetic track and distance from CPT VOR to Wycombe Air Park?,,, and don't tell me its 065degrees M and 17 miles because we would both be wrong!!
And if you want to have it reviewed, you have to pay! no wonder there are so many errors in the exams, if you try and give feedback you get met with a brick wall.

According to SkyDemon it’s 064’M, 17nm.

I once sat a multiple choice helicopter tech exam which had some glaring errors and questions with no correct answer - I failed it by a percent or so, iirc. Turned out it had been set by our company’s Chief Engineer who subsequently failed it three times himself when he had read the books properly!

Have you sent an email to [email protected] explaining that you believe there is a question that contains an error?

thanks Whopity, i'll do that, emailing "[email protected]" was a waste of time

the options were 067 or 070, the student selected 067 as the nearest, but was marked wrong.

I measured it on a CAA 1/2 Mil chart and it came out to 067/17 Skydemon gave it as 065 True, but with 0 variation is 065M/17

Guugle Earth.;064.65* /17.02nm.0* var. to middle of main rwy .ref pt

Did the question really ask for TRACK to be measured on a provided map? Wouldn't a map measurement provide a BEARING, or perhaps a COURSE, not a TRACK?

No, not aimed at anyone in particular. I'd just like to know if the question asked for a TRACK value because that seems to be incorrect terminology. Pehaps the OP would post the exact wording of the question.

Quite likely in the USA, but remember that this exam is based on U.K. terminology. In the U.K. the pilot would normally measure the True Track on the chart, apply variation (in this case zero) to get Magnetic track, apply the wind correction to get Magnetic heading then compass variation to get the compass heading. Different terminology for FAA and CAA.

Radial is specific to a VOR so not strictly relevant for visual navigation.

whatever you call it it still comes out at 064 ish if measured at CPT or slightly different at midway because of the chart projection, and 17 nm.

All of this raises an interesting question for me, as an invigilator. Should the candidate be revealing individual questions and some of the answers? When e-exams started some people (championed I recall by Beagle) complained about the lack of ability to feedback incorrect answers, as we were able to do with the old paper exams. I think the CAA wanted to inhibit the formation of 'question banks'.
Does anyone know the CAA's take on publicising specific exams questions and discussing potential answers on an open forum like this?
Personally as an invigilator I do get asked my opinion on individual questions but don't discuss it with the candidate but rather refer them to the 'areas of weakness' they get with their results. I'm always pleased to discuss these, as an instructor, but not individual exam questions.
I do recall when I took my Commercial exams decades ago we were specifically prohibited from taking questions out of the exam room, even in our heads.
Right or Wrong?
TOO

I learned map and compass navigation in the Scouts in UK. However, most of my flight training has been in USA so I certainly have more familiarity with FAA terminology than CAA terminology.

I tried to find UK CAA definitions of bearing and track but couldn't find them. Would someone provide a link please.

The RAF Manual Flying AP3456 defines Track as: This differs from the US definition.
The same document does not define Course which is generally not used in the UK however; it is on the front of an RAF Dalton 4B Computer as True Course; Dalton was American.

I'm fed up of the exams already, i think come ground examiner renewal time i won't bother. I will send candidates to other schools.
The lack of not knowing which questions the candidate got wrong, the ref. numbers they give too vague.
There might even be no correct answers for all we know based on past experience of the paper exams.
These people are hobby pilots in the main, need to stick to what they need real world.
Question should say what radial and distance is the airfield from beacon. There should be no silly answers hovering around the real answer. Like say 064, 065, 063 or 067. We know we can only measure to within a few degrees.
Unless of course we provide the quarter mil chart and some very sharp pencils.

BigEndBob, there is nothing to stop you using a second monitor to view the candidate's work. If you make any notes during the exam they must then be destroyed after you've debriefed the candidate.

According to NATS, the declination value at the CPT VOR was 0.7°W at 2016 and 0.15°E in 2022. I don't know whether that's significant for the answer to this question?

Using the lat/long positions published by NATS for CPT VOR and Wycombe Air Park aerodrome reference point, my navigation software, using WGS84 and current magnetic variation, calculated a mean magnetic track of 064.785° and a distance of 17.019nm.

Semantics here matter little. Interchanging 'track' for 'course' doesn't require much of anyone. Bearing is just another name for for the same thing although normally used to express from a specific point which is not static; for ADF use we refer to a 'relative-bearing' meaning 'measured round the clock from the nose of the aeroplane'. The aeroplane being the specific point but which may be continuously changing.

If the question is specifically from a VOR then it is a radial that is required.by the question. This becomes a track/course only when it is drawn on a chart/map, but is inbuilt, ready to steer using the magnetic compass (ignoring compass errors) with the VOR's local magnetic variation.

The CAA cannot do anything about this although they insist on trying. Most commercial pilot ground schools make a practice of it, thus 'feedback question banks'. The 'PPL Confuser', published many years ago was, in my view, a lift from the actual exam papers; the CAA were powerless to stop it.

Simple question with no ambiguity would be to ask the true track and distance from the beacon to airfield.
But i think the question was trying to be too clever using a beacon where the variation is almost zero!
Might have worked 40 years ago with 8W variation.

The above is the question asked. The answer must be the relevant VOR radial using the latest CAA UK chart or a specified edition.

Very interesting. Is there a reference or evidence of a CAA approval that an invigilator, who presumably, is also a CAA Ground Examiner, may do this? May an Instructor also do this?

No, the invigilator MUST be a Ground Examiner!!

The author of the Confuser actually sent a copy of the questions he had written to the Head of Standards at the CAA asking if he could publish it. The answer was Yes! The head of Standards then informed the Chief Ground Examiner who looked at the questions and recognised them as his own! The CAA can take action re Copyright.