Something to answer for AFT??
The reality is that if they made the exam based on a 767 or 777 then the thing would become straight forward as the manuals and systems are better engineered and simpler.
I'd just like to chirp in here in Nathans defence.
I sat his 6 week course mid this year. The rumour that he simply teaches the exam, is incorrect. I came out of his course with a very good understanding of the concepts behind flight planning and could still recall pretty well all of it now months later.
And as much as I ranted and raved at the time that the 727 is outdated, as Green Goblin said, the methods are the same, regardless of the aircraft type you use.
I did enjoy flight planning, and managed to walk out of the exam first go, with 94%.
What DOES need some changing, is the quality of the graphs/tables etc. that you use for Performance! They are near on impossible to be accurate with.
morno
I sat his 6 week course mid this year. The rumour that he simply teaches the exam, is incorrect. I came out of his course with a very good understanding of the concepts behind flight planning and could still recall pretty well all of it now months later.
And as much as I ranted and raved at the time that the 727 is outdated, as Green Goblin said, the methods are the same, regardless of the aircraft type you use.
I did enjoy flight planning, and managed to walk out of the exam first go, with 94%.
What DOES need some changing, is the quality of the graphs/tables etc. that you use for Performance! They are near on impossible to be accurate with.
morno
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Under the wing, asleep.
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole thing would be fairer for everyone if CASA provided some information on how they came up with the answers to their questions. Not saying they should give you the answers to all the questions just an example with working, then you could see which numbers to round up/down, how many decimal places to carry, even what kind of margin on your CR2 you can have. Plenty of questions have been failed simply due to the thickness of a pencil or the rounding of a number.
I went to a theory provider with a good reputation (LT), did the work and had a good look at all the supporting material CASA provide. I made sure I had covered all items in the syllabus. I got through first time.
These exams aren't meant to be easy (nor should they be), but by no means are they impossible. By doing a bit of extra research and speaking to people in the know you can really put yourself ahead of the curve.
What DOES need some changing, is the quality of the graphs/tables etc. that you use for Performance! They are near on impossible to be accurate with.
Last edited by Wanderin_dave; 20th Nov 2012 at 02:06.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest their is nothing wrong with Higgins course, but learning everything in Flight Planning in less than two weeks is a huge effort on both sides.
His course is tailored to people who are working and that would like to get through quickly and efficiently. I enjoyed the course last year in MCY but by the end of the 2nd week I was so burnt out I barely had the energy left going into the exam.
I honestly think people would have a better success rate if they gave themself an extra week or two to revise everything in the course before attempting the exam. When I sat flight planning last year out of 47 students there were 16 that passed.
His course is tailored to people who are working and that would like to get through quickly and efficiently. I enjoyed the course last year in MCY but by the end of the 2nd week I was so burnt out I barely had the energy left going into the exam.
I honestly think people would have a better success rate if they gave themself an extra week or two to revise everything in the course before attempting the exam. When I sat flight planning last year out of 47 students there were 16 that passed.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm certain no one is suggesting the exam is unnecessarily difficult. The thread began because of an apparent down turn in the pass rate.
To suggest a dud course at a particular training establishment would be a statistical anomaly. A fairly random pool of 40 odd 6 months ago should have a similar pass rate to more recent attempts (plus or minus blah blah...). I'm sure if a school had a consistent pass rate of 1:15-ish (as suggested in previous posts), it would not survive long.
If there has been a sudden change it would suggest something other than a dud course of students. And would need looking into. Especially if the exam had been recently "re-jigged".
To suggest a dud course at a particular training establishment would be a statistical anomaly. A fairly random pool of 40 odd 6 months ago should have a similar pass rate to more recent attempts (plus or minus blah blah...). I'm sure if a school had a consistent pass rate of 1:15-ish (as suggested in previous posts), it would not survive long.
If there has been a sudden change it would suggest something other than a dud course of students. And would need looking into. Especially if the exam had been recently "re-jigged".
I spent about 6 weeks doing flight planning, and I self studied with AFTs notes.
The trick to the exam is understanding the concept and what you are trying to achieve.
It helps to be practical about it too.
The biggest tip I can give folk is if you get a result that is between two answers, always pick the lowest fuel burn figure as an answer.
The more sectors you break your plan into, the more fuel burns you can calculate and the lower the burn in each sector as the aircraft gets lighter.
If you understand this, you will pass flight planning first go with at least an 80% pass mark.
The trick to the exam is understanding the concept and what you are trying to achieve.
It helps to be practical about it too.
The biggest tip I can give folk is if you get a result that is between two answers, always pick the lowest fuel burn figure as an answer.
The more sectors you break your plan into, the more fuel burns you can calculate and the lower the burn in each sector as the aircraft gets lighter.
If you understand this, you will pass flight planning first go with at least an 80% pass mark.
Sounds like a few too many nights at the Scu-Bar!
But seriously, what Nathan doesn't know about planning is not worth knowing. I did his planning course earlier this year he covered absolutely everything in the exam syllabus, with a few very helpful "rules of thumb".
His course is second to none.
Id be more suspicious on Casa actually organising their exam answers in order with the questions!
P.S Last I heard, old god bothering Gav was working for CLARC, not writing exams...
But seriously, what Nathan doesn't know about planning is not worth knowing. I did his planning course earlier this year he covered absolutely everything in the exam syllabus, with a few very helpful "rules of thumb".
His course is second to none.
Id be more suspicious on Casa actually organising their exam answers in order with the questions!
P.S Last I heard, old god bothering Gav was working for CLARC, not writing exams...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: sydney area
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest to anyone that feels hard done by in the exam to contact and make a complaint to CLARC (CASA licensing) via email and phone. From first hand experience, I can confirm the stats ( 3 people passing out of 45 people). There were some super smart people in the class, including Julia Gillards pilot, as well as many other FO's etc. Most people found the exam pretty easy and straight forward but most scored under 50%, and a fair few under 40%. The exam had many errors, including asking for 'total fuel burnt from A to B' and giving answers in kg/ph. It was a joke. If they can't get it together to write a exam, what chance do they have of looking after our safety. Rant over.
Farmer Dan
Farmer Dan
To dispel a myth - Nathan does not teach the exam - it is abundantly clear in his course that he understands his obligation to teach the theory. Given that, nobody can deny that 18/19 flightplanning questions in 3 hours with a required accuracy of around 1% is not easy - Nathan teaches valid and proven methods to arrive at that accuracy. He is an excellent teacher and he is committed to teaching the subject, not just how to pass the exam.
Ok, I did the exam yesterday also - unlike most of the other ATPL subjects I've done in the last few years, when I hit the submit button I genuinely thought that I was possibly in line for 100%. I knew the questions and I even had 10 mins to spare to re-check the 1 and 2 markers for stupid errors. I got 50%. Something is going on here.
I agree with Farmer Dan - we need to apply some pressure here. I'm not sure what the rules are with requesting a re-mark - given the circumstances I'm beside myself that my workings have been shredded and there's no evidence of what I did.
Ok, I did the exam yesterday also - unlike most of the other ATPL subjects I've done in the last few years, when I hit the submit button I genuinely thought that I was possibly in line for 100%. I knew the questions and I even had 10 mins to spare to re-check the 1 and 2 markers for stupid errors. I got 50%. Something is going on here.
I agree with Farmer Dan - we need to apply some pressure here. I'm not sure what the rules are with requesting a re-mark - given the circumstances I'm beside myself that my workings have been shredded and there's no evidence of what I did.
Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 20th Nov 2012 at 10:09.
The current ATPLs have about as much to do with modern transport aviation as cross stitch
Opening the flight plan envelope or learning how to print the flight plan?
How to enjoy a perfect flat white, whilst bumping up flight plan fuel figures?
101 excuses to carry extra fuel?
How to handle a Captain who likes minimum fuel?
ETOPS?
I'd love to hear it
You done many geometric solutions to a PNR or ETP lately?
Done a lot of work with polar stenographic charts this year?
And the INS gyro stuff. I'm sure you're so busy dealing with those every day you don't even have time to answer on those questions.
There are bit and pieces that are certainly useful but to answer your question, I 'propose' they modernize the exams and aim to test more practical theoretical areas that may have some practical benefit to a shiny new ATPL candidate.
Regarding the 727, yes the techniques are more or less the same but at least make it on an aircraft that actually operates in this country.
Last edited by das Uber Soldat; 20th Nov 2012 at 10:01.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: VMC
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I 'propose' they modernize the exams and aim to test more practical theoretical areas that may have some practical benefit to a shiny new ATPL candidate.
Last edited by mr.tos; 20th Nov 2012 at 11:31.
Its an out dated exam made by old crusty men refusing to change it, just cause they had to sit it back in the day! Get with the times!
He was a bitter and twisted cranky old grey haired public servant who used to be a navigator on Wellington bombers dropping bombs on the Jerries. Probably what gave him the grey hair! As a former navigator he was just what DCA wanted to set up the flight planning and navigation exams. These were full of (would you believe) Antarctic grid navigation exams and gyro steering questions at high latitudes.
I dropped in to say hello and said his exams were completely irrelevent to the average airline pilot flying a DC3 between Tassie and the mainland. He spat the dummy and said his exams were based on Qantas International requirements where in those days their pilots had to have a Navigation Licence. And if pilots couldn't pass his exams then that was their problem. I pointed out that even the navigators on my squadron who had helped me were unable to get his answers right so what hope could mere pilots have?
I'm buggered if I could see the relevance of his argument but at least I got it out of my system. You had to know all about Meridional Parts and Log tables, too. Seems things haven't changed much in Fifty years...
I think the issue here is not about the relevance of the exam but the fact it appears casa have changed something recently that has resulted in an abnormal fail rate. If this is the case they need to explain what has changed so providers of the training can adapt the training to suit.
Self study is not for everyone. If you fork out the coin and the time to go into full time ground school then you should expect a reasonable chance of passing, as has previously been experienced by AFT students.
Self study is not for everyone. If you fork out the coin and the time to go into full time ground school then you should expect a reasonable chance of passing, as has previously been experienced by AFT students.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue here is not about the relevance of the exam but the fact it appears casa have changed something recently that has resulted in an abnormal fail rate. If this is the case they need to explain what has changed so providers of the training can adapt the training to suit.
If the increase applies to everyone it would remove the aspersions re AFT, and suggest either some dud exams or the changes to the exam criteria have not gotten through to the candidates.
Would be nice academia is very different to the real world. The deeper you go into any subject area, the more theoretical and less practical it gets.
You can go into detail on a subject area and still keep it relevant. I can provide countless examples of the ATPL syllabus covering crap that isn't even remotely relevant. To anyone.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current count of people (that we know of, surely more) who have sat the flight planning exam in the last couple of weeks is around 75. Of those, a grand total of 4 have passed, and only just. These were not all AFT students so it has nothign to do with them and what they are teaching.
Stats from the casa website is a pass rate of 59.3% (lowest of all the ATPL) with 32.7% of all those getting 80+ and 17.5% getting less that 55. Out off all the people who have recently sat, most have got below 50.
Something is seriously wrong. CASA have apparently gone back through a whole lot of workings and said we are all wrong.
What do you do now ? Especially if casa wont budge
Stats from the casa website is a pass rate of 59.3% (lowest of all the ATPL) with 32.7% of all those getting 80+ and 17.5% getting less that 55. Out off all the people who have recently sat, most have got below 50.
Something is seriously wrong. CASA have apparently gone back through a whole lot of workings and said we are all wrong.
What do you do now ? Especially if casa wont budge
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sat NH's course earlier this year.
Whilst he used practice questions extensively, he still taught the course thoroughly and I have absolutely no doubts about recommending his course to any pilot.
After having completed my ATPL I can say there was not exam where ASL did not have some sort of problem with the computers, the server, CASA's server etc etc. Literally not one exam. I sat some in Queensland and some in Bankstown. Both locations experienced similar problems.
I contacted the relevant head of CASA licencing and examinations. He didnt really seem to care much, and made blind excuses for everything. He did say that changes were due as this year progressed however.
Im no pointing the finger as I simply dont know. My best guess however, is that they made an ass of the changes and didnt test it. Id be surprised if they ever admitted it. Typical CASA disorganisation, lack of professionalism and blatant disregard for the pilots they serve.
Im sure nothing will be done to change this of course....
Moral of the story - AFT was a great course in my opinion. Have a look where most issues lie in aviation...
Whilst he used practice questions extensively, he still taught the course thoroughly and I have absolutely no doubts about recommending his course to any pilot.
After having completed my ATPL I can say there was not exam where ASL did not have some sort of problem with the computers, the server, CASA's server etc etc. Literally not one exam. I sat some in Queensland and some in Bankstown. Both locations experienced similar problems.
I contacted the relevant head of CASA licencing and examinations. He didnt really seem to care much, and made blind excuses for everything. He did say that changes were due as this year progressed however.
Im no pointing the finger as I simply dont know. My best guess however, is that they made an ass of the changes and didnt test it. Id be surprised if they ever admitted it. Typical CASA disorganisation, lack of professionalism and blatant disregard for the pilots they serve.
Im sure nothing will be done to change this of course....
Moral of the story - AFT was a great course in my opinion. Have a look where most issues lie in aviation...
Ok - I'll add to the stats.
I sat the exam today. Had previously self studied - been unclear about reserves required for various situations and just failed (69%
). Was pissed as I'm normally pretty good at this type of stuff.
So I bought Rob Avery's notes and practice exams. I'm confident that I now understand the subject well, and can do accurate plans in reasonable time. Today I got 38% - really pissed now.
I have seen both the old exam and the new one. The new one is just LOTS of detailed plans (full or partial) with VERY close answers. Mostly covering fuel burn - I saw nothing on PNR, and only one or two simple CPs. One or two other small questions (max alt, fuel burn...). So it's LOTS and LOTS of detailed plans.
I don't believe the exam answers are correct. Of course I will have made mistakes, but there were plenty of high score questions where I am very confident I calculated the question sensibly, but obviously didn't get the points.
So - no point throwing more good money after bad, if the 6% pass rate is true. What Can we do?
Is this CASA, in panic mode over the Senate enquiries and the Pelair stuff, making sure Dominic What'sHisName doesn't pass FPL?
Or protecting there ass because someone up north was passing around answers?
Either way it's really fckg ridiculous.
I sat the exam today. Had previously self studied - been unclear about reserves required for various situations and just failed (69%
). Was pissed as I'm normally pretty good at this type of stuff.So I bought Rob Avery's notes and practice exams. I'm confident that I now understand the subject well, and can do accurate plans in reasonable time. Today I got 38% - really pissed now.
I have seen both the old exam and the new one. The new one is just LOTS of detailed plans (full or partial) with VERY close answers. Mostly covering fuel burn - I saw nothing on PNR, and only one or two simple CPs. One or two other small questions (max alt, fuel burn...). So it's LOTS and LOTS of detailed plans.
I don't believe the exam answers are correct. Of course I will have made mistakes, but there were plenty of high score questions where I am very confident I calculated the question sensibly, but obviously didn't get the points.
So - no point throwing more good money after bad, if the 6% pass rate is true. What Can we do?
Is this CASA, in panic mode over the Senate enquiries and the Pelair stuff, making sure Dominic What'sHisName doesn't pass FPL?
Or protecting there ass because someone up north was passing around answers?
Either way it's really fckg ridiculous.
Last edited by drpixie; 22nd Nov 2012 at 05:29.