Something to answer for AFT??
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drpixie
Loved your post.
Have you tried working the answers to 6 decimal places for each and every calculation with rounding on your calculator turned OFF to get the
to fall easily into the right box?
My failing memory suggests that was a routine required? by the regulator in the past.
If you can survive that process then you might have the qualities required to be a good captain one day.
With at least one of their answers to the long question being clearly incorrect.
Noel, God bless him had to work it through for them on a whiteboard, to be told, and this is just hearsay you know, we are now going to have to arrest you for having unauthourised knowledge of the question. Penalty 1,000,000 points or 20 years working for the regulator.
Question to them, what about those who have accidently passed and those who have apprently failed but actually passed, corrective action will be taken? Err no.
The Green Goblin
Seems to have it nailed and his comments regarding many iterations over shorter legs makes a lot of sense, (see my 6 decimal above would have a similar effect?) if you have the time and numeracy acuity.
In real life good operators, come back to quick and relatively dirty macro/rule of thumb answers to check the computerised calcs as they go.
The stats are full of flights that went bad because the crew were blindly following the bouncing ball instead of maintaining full SA as a double check in their heads.
It might appear to be an intelectual exercise but has actual the effect of filtering out those unsuitable even though some but not many get through the airlines net. The real lessons start when you get on the type they have assigned you and even then you may wash out for any number of reasons unrelated to flight planning
Doesn't sound like a lot has changed at the regulator and you may be right about the current situation, we have been there before.
Having said that don't give up, let things settle down, talk to your tutor, he'll have an idea of whats happening and good luck with the next one, as they say, it's the best view in the world.
Loved your post.
Have you tried working the answers to 6 decimal places for each and every calculation with rounding on your calculator turned OFF to get the
Code:
VERY close answers
My failing memory suggests that was a routine required? by the regulator in the past.
If you can survive that process then you might have the qualities required to be a good captain one day.
With at least one of their answers to the long question being clearly incorrect.
Noel, God bless him had to work it through for them on a whiteboard, to be told, and this is just hearsay you know, we are now going to have to arrest you for having unauthourised knowledge of the question. Penalty 1,000,000 points or 20 years working for the regulator.
Question to them, what about those who have accidently passed and those who have apprently failed but actually passed, corrective action will be taken? Err no.
The Green Goblin
Seems to have it nailed and his comments regarding many iterations over shorter legs makes a lot of sense, (see my 6 decimal above would have a similar effect?) if you have the time and numeracy acuity.
In real life good operators, come back to quick and relatively dirty macro/rule of thumb answers to check the computerised calcs as they go.
The stats are full of flights that went bad because the crew were blindly following the bouncing ball instead of maintaining full SA as a double check in their heads.
It might appear to be an intelectual exercise but has actual the effect of filtering out those unsuitable even though some but not many get through the airlines net. The real lessons start when you get on the type they have assigned you and even then you may wash out for any number of reasons unrelated to flight planning
Doesn't sound like a lot has changed at the regulator and you may be right about the current situation, we have been there before.
Having said that don't give up, let things settle down, talk to your tutor, he'll have an idea of whats happening and good luck with the next one, as they say, it's the best view in the world.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: sydney area
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What to do now?
I know I might be stating the obvious but I think it needs to be spelt out for some people
. Try emailing and calling the following:
-CLARC
-CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner - Online complaint form.
- AFAP (if you are a member)
Farmer Dan.
. Try emailing and calling the following:-CLARC
-CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner - Online complaint form.
- AFAP (if you are a member)
Farmer Dan.
Last edited by farmer dan; 22nd Nov 2012 at 22:41. Reason: website address error.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Top End to the South
Age: 36
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am going to have to strongly disagree with the original poster here.
Nathan's notes and his course are fantastic, I self studied all 7 of the ATPLs and passed all first time except flight planning.
I failed the first time by 1 mark, then passed the second albeit only just.
The questions and course material havent changed, and no one should have any doubt that the material you are learning is incorrect. As for all this 727 discussion well that's another topic...
For anyone reading this post my tips to passing this exam are simple;
1. Be prepared for exteremly difficult 1 and 2 markers where you will have to do the equivalent of 3-4 marks work. CASA will make you work extremely hard for 2 marks by for e.g. giving you a weight in the middle of a climb sector and then asking you to find GW once cruising, so you'll be using intermedaite climb calculations etc. all for just 2 marks)
2. DO NOT use any super sectors. The exam has been re-jigged and the answers are extremely tightly spaced. There is no margin to average any weather whatsoever unless we are talking 1 degree of temperature (with answers 50 kg apart even 30-40 kg over a 5 hour flight you are going to have to do it the hard way) (this was my undoing on my first attempt)
3. Read the syallabus as to exaclty how CASA round their numbers. Having studied an engineering degree actually put me in worse sted for the exam, if you do not round your numbers to the nearest 3 degrees or 5 degrees for example you are going to get the question wrong. Additionally for sector ETIs use at least 2 decimal places 30 seconds of fuel at 4500 kg/hr is 38 kg!!
4. Write the distances on ERC high charts for all the common routes and highlight the common routes.
5. Work extremely fast, a basic plan should take you 10-12 minutes tops
You have 50 marks and 180 minutes. That's 3 minutes 36 seconds per mark. Do the math.
Good luck to all sitting the exam.
AA out.
Nathan's notes and his course are fantastic, I self studied all 7 of the ATPLs and passed all first time except flight planning.
I failed the first time by 1 mark, then passed the second albeit only just.
The questions and course material havent changed, and no one should have any doubt that the material you are learning is incorrect. As for all this 727 discussion well that's another topic...
For anyone reading this post my tips to passing this exam are simple;
1. Be prepared for exteremly difficult 1 and 2 markers where you will have to do the equivalent of 3-4 marks work. CASA will make you work extremely hard for 2 marks by for e.g. giving you a weight in the middle of a climb sector and then asking you to find GW once cruising, so you'll be using intermedaite climb calculations etc. all for just 2 marks)
2. DO NOT use any super sectors. The exam has been re-jigged and the answers are extremely tightly spaced. There is no margin to average any weather whatsoever unless we are talking 1 degree of temperature (with answers 50 kg apart even 30-40 kg over a 5 hour flight you are going to have to do it the hard way) (this was my undoing on my first attempt)
3. Read the syallabus as to exaclty how CASA round their numbers. Having studied an engineering degree actually put me in worse sted for the exam, if you do not round your numbers to the nearest 3 degrees or 5 degrees for example you are going to get the question wrong. Additionally for sector ETIs use at least 2 decimal places 30 seconds of fuel at 4500 kg/hr is 38 kg!!
4. Write the distances on ERC high charts for all the common routes and highlight the common routes.
5. Work extremely fast, a basic plan should take you 10-12 minutes tops
You have 50 marks and 180 minutes. That's 3 minutes 36 seconds per mark. Do the math.
Good luck to all sitting the exam.
AA out.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Top End to the South
Age: 36
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have got to be kidding me right?
Apparently, due to the unexplainably high pass rate and "technical difficulties" it would seem this is the only way to make the exam more difficult.
The exam has been re-jigged and the answers are extremely tightly spaced.
Surely the point of the exam is to assess the ability of an individual to demonstrate the application of the theory. The ridiculous rounding rules and abnormal fuel penalties (e.g. gear down climb) that are employed by CASA in this exam, guarantee that the answer (no matter how "accurate") is not realistic anyway. MANY people (not just AFT students) have been taught a particular method and "re-jigging" the exam is just not fair.
I'm disappointed that this has evidently come about as a result of cheating - so often the minority ruin it for the majority.
I believe writing to CLARC will not achieve a satisfactory outcome - it will just be forwarded to the person responsible, who, I am led to believe, strenuously denies anything is wrong/broken with the exam.
Farmer Dan's suggestion re the "CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner - Online complaint form" - is a good one - I'm finding myself agreeing with Farmer Dan every day! Please, for maximum effect, could those affected pursue this further!
I am extremely reticent to book my next exam until something has happened, though I'm not holding my breath...
Moderator
Noel, God bless him had to work it through for them on a whiteboard
I presume you refer to Noel L, Gaunty ? Back in the olden days, Noel and I spent a couple of sessions in with CASA's alter ego of the day (probably still was DCA, then) and we (and several other Industry folks) were tasked with going through the exam bank to comment. Nothing wrong with questions at that stage, I suggest.
The main problem with exams has always been twofold .. on the one hand, the examiner needs to test a reasonable fraction of the syllabus and that is a hard ask with a time limited single examination. In addition, there needs to be a reasonable looksee at the student's ability to do sensible quasi-real world calculations.
My view has always been that a combination of multi-guess to look at the former combined with longhand calcs for the latter is a reasonable scenario. With the multi-guess one can put in distractors and close alternatives to sort the wheat from the chaff and provide a level of grading. The longhand exercises, though, need to concentrate on technique and logic rather than the actual answer .. providing that the student recognises if he/she has gone off on an inappropriate tangent and so identifies in the manuscript.
For exam results suddenly to skew dramatically raises concerns in several areas -
(a) it is a reasonable presumption that student ability and performance, on average, will be predictable.
(b) a significant exam result skewing suggests one of
(i) (a) didn't operate on the occasion for some reason
(ii) the particular exam(s) involved a significant step change in technical difficulty, whether up or down
(iii) the particular exam(s) involved a significant step change in the level of dissimulation, whether up or down
Do the exams need to be "practical". I suggest not, although they do need to be sensible. Requiring discrimination of answers to quite inappropriate accuracies probably is not quite necessary. As in all areas of mensuration, accuracy ought to be pitched at the reasonable requirements of what is being assessed.
Gaunty also makes the point that a commercial piloting career ought not to be the result of good attendance.
Some folks ..
(a) are particularly suited and sail through exams, endorsements and training programs without any undue difficult .. and then fly with a level of skill which makes the rest of us green with envy
(b) are reasonably suited and talented and, with a bit of work and effort, make the grade
(c) are a little behind the eight-ball to start with and, by virtue of extreme application and diligence, make the grade. I can recall (with great fondness) a couple of such folk whom I trained through their theory work and they persevered and made a good grade. One ended up a well regarded C&T chap for a respected carrier
(d) some, unfortunately, really need to look elsewhere for work
The exams, endorsement programs, line training, upgrade training programs and so forth are all part of the process which facilitates putting folks into one of the paddocks.
Does the system always get it right ? Of course not but, then, no system gets to be perfect.
The student needs to know the work and, also, have a familiarity with the style of questions and answers which the examiner is looking for.
Well do I recall my first looksee at ATPL/SCPL Flight Planning. I read the syllabus .. pretty straightforward ... swotted Worthington (a recommended standard text for the subject) ... pretty interesting and straightforward .. and then sat the exam .. pretty shattering.
Next time around I had had a look at some typical exam questions and solutions and the result was a tad different ...
A bit of a thick skin helps one to get through this aviation minefield, I suggest.
I presume you refer to Noel L, Gaunty ? Back in the olden days, Noel and I spent a couple of sessions in with CASA's alter ego of the day (probably still was DCA, then) and we (and several other Industry folks) were tasked with going through the exam bank to comment. Nothing wrong with questions at that stage, I suggest.
The main problem with exams has always been twofold .. on the one hand, the examiner needs to test a reasonable fraction of the syllabus and that is a hard ask with a time limited single examination. In addition, there needs to be a reasonable looksee at the student's ability to do sensible quasi-real world calculations.
My view has always been that a combination of multi-guess to look at the former combined with longhand calcs for the latter is a reasonable scenario. With the multi-guess one can put in distractors and close alternatives to sort the wheat from the chaff and provide a level of grading. The longhand exercises, though, need to concentrate on technique and logic rather than the actual answer .. providing that the student recognises if he/she has gone off on an inappropriate tangent and so identifies in the manuscript.
For exam results suddenly to skew dramatically raises concerns in several areas -
(a) it is a reasonable presumption that student ability and performance, on average, will be predictable.
(b) a significant exam result skewing suggests one of
(i) (a) didn't operate on the occasion for some reason
(ii) the particular exam(s) involved a significant step change in technical difficulty, whether up or down
(iii) the particular exam(s) involved a significant step change in the level of dissimulation, whether up or down
Do the exams need to be "practical". I suggest not, although they do need to be sensible. Requiring discrimination of answers to quite inappropriate accuracies probably is not quite necessary. As in all areas of mensuration, accuracy ought to be pitched at the reasonable requirements of what is being assessed.
Gaunty also makes the point that a commercial piloting career ought not to be the result of good attendance.
Some folks ..
(a) are particularly suited and sail through exams, endorsements and training programs without any undue difficult .. and then fly with a level of skill which makes the rest of us green with envy
(b) are reasonably suited and talented and, with a bit of work and effort, make the grade
(c) are a little behind the eight-ball to start with and, by virtue of extreme application and diligence, make the grade. I can recall (with great fondness) a couple of such folk whom I trained through their theory work and they persevered and made a good grade. One ended up a well regarded C&T chap for a respected carrier
(d) some, unfortunately, really need to look elsewhere for work
The exams, endorsement programs, line training, upgrade training programs and so forth are all part of the process which facilitates putting folks into one of the paddocks.
Does the system always get it right ? Of course not but, then, no system gets to be perfect.
The student needs to know the work and, also, have a familiarity with the style of questions and answers which the examiner is looking for.
Well do I recall my first looksee at ATPL/SCPL Flight Planning. I read the syllabus .. pretty straightforward ... swotted Worthington (a recommended standard text for the subject) ... pretty interesting and straightforward .. and then sat the exam .. pretty shattering.
Next time around I had had a look at some typical exam questions and solutions and the result was a tad different ...
A bit of a thick skin helps one to get through this aviation minefield, I suggest.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere over Davy Jones's locker
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown all over the world in a 135000LB grey beast, on the bones of my arse in fuel with little friendly divert options, without sitting an ATPL flight planning subject and not once run out of fuel. Only using the techniques from the good old Lockheed based flight manual and basic SGR's. Why does the exam have to be so hard and if dudes are still screwing up their planning in big aircraft, what went wrong with their type conversions?... On the subject of gross error checking the computer for fuel planning (I do it my self), how many times has it been wrong?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your 135,000lb grey beast is operated in a completely different environment to the environment we operate in. Not saying someone who has done well in your environment wouldn't do well in ours, or vice versa. But the training to get to the same end stage is very different, the supervision along the way is very different and the outcome from failing a flight is very different.
No doubt along the path to flying a 135,000lb grey beast you've gone some extremely stressful points in your life to prove you deserve to be there. In our environment this is one of them.
Because of the inconsistency in our training, the regulator occasionally steps in. With pay for your own endorsements, training budgets have been slashed, there often isn't time to repeat a flight. With pressure from management to get a certain number of pilots on line, some candidates are passed when they possibly shouldn't be.
At this point the regulator has two options... they could put their foot down with the airline(s) and say their type conversion was inadequate. But this is a big political game and one they don't want to get involved in. Or they could simply make the standard to get to the interview stage just that little bit harder and tweak an exam that they do have control over. The only people who are going to complain aren't in a situation to do a lot about it. Guess what they decided to do?
This happens every few years, they watch the outcome and silently tweak in the direction required. Some times things get harder, sometimes an extra half hour is allowed in the exam, some times a few questions disappear.
Would this be better done at the airline level with a company that has the resources to retrain as required if someone doesn't meet the standard and the material can be made relevant to the type in question? Absolutely. But the industry is moving as far away from that as possible in an attempt to cut costs, and hence the ATPL is being used and expected to check knowledge to the level required for the first type rating, albeit on a semi-imaginary aircraft (B727 Flight Planning, combination of 767 and 737 systems, etc.). If someone isn't meeting the grade, they simply have to pay to retrain until they do. Then when they come to do the second type rating (the first real one!) there can be an assumed level of knowledge and the airlines can pay the bare minimum in training costs.
No doubt along the path to flying a 135,000lb grey beast you've gone some extremely stressful points in your life to prove you deserve to be there. In our environment this is one of them.
Because of the inconsistency in our training, the regulator occasionally steps in. With pay for your own endorsements, training budgets have been slashed, there often isn't time to repeat a flight. With pressure from management to get a certain number of pilots on line, some candidates are passed when they possibly shouldn't be.
At this point the regulator has two options... they could put their foot down with the airline(s) and say their type conversion was inadequate. But this is a big political game and one they don't want to get involved in. Or they could simply make the standard to get to the interview stage just that little bit harder and tweak an exam that they do have control over. The only people who are going to complain aren't in a situation to do a lot about it. Guess what they decided to do?
This happens every few years, they watch the outcome and silently tweak in the direction required. Some times things get harder, sometimes an extra half hour is allowed in the exam, some times a few questions disappear.
Would this be better done at the airline level with a company that has the resources to retrain as required if someone doesn't meet the standard and the material can be made relevant to the type in question? Absolutely. But the industry is moving as far away from that as possible in an attempt to cut costs, and hence the ATPL is being used and expected to check knowledge to the level required for the first type rating, albeit on a semi-imaginary aircraft (B727 Flight Planning, combination of 767 and 737 systems, etc.). If someone isn't meeting the grade, they simply have to pay to retrain until they do. Then when they come to do the second type rating (the first real one!) there can be an assumed level of knowledge and the airlines can pay the bare minimum in training costs.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere over Davy Jones's locker
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Having experienced the civilian world as a CPL holder before I joined, I have small insight into that world.
It is a very unfortunate that the organisations in the best positions to provide the training aren't due to money. So the industry has to rely on a 6% pass rate in an exam to weed out its lower performers. That does not exactly stop people from overseas with qualifications attained in a system with a much higher pass rate, being targeted by these organisations ( or talked about being targeted). Are you getting a better product there or not?
My argument is that they should be teaching relevance. Instead of wasting people's time and money on exams that require you to use calculations to six decimal places, on an aircraft built on slide rules, with charts designed before calculators. That should be invested in teaching the relevant skills to today's modern machinery. Im not saying don't teach or examine this stuff, just maybe it can be refocused.
As for growing pilots, the guts of the training on fuel planning I had before my first conversion was that the SGR of the PC9 was around 2lb/nm. The conversion was taught as type specific straight from the flight manual. Very easy to learn, you can do it without a calculator... As for the environment. We still share the same airways, fly the same SIDS, and burn Jet A1.
It's a good topic, change is not always bad, running out of fuel is.
It is a very unfortunate that the organisations in the best positions to provide the training aren't due to money. So the industry has to rely on a 6% pass rate in an exam to weed out its lower performers. That does not exactly stop people from overseas with qualifications attained in a system with a much higher pass rate, being targeted by these organisations ( or talked about being targeted). Are you getting a better product there or not?
My argument is that they should be teaching relevance. Instead of wasting people's time and money on exams that require you to use calculations to six decimal places, on an aircraft built on slide rules, with charts designed before calculators. That should be invested in teaching the relevant skills to today's modern machinery. Im not saying don't teach or examine this stuff, just maybe it can be refocused.
As for growing pilots, the guts of the training on fuel planning I had before my first conversion was that the SGR of the PC9 was around 2lb/nm. The conversion was taught as type specific straight from the flight manual. Very easy to learn, you can do it without a calculator... As for the environment. We still share the same airways, fly the same SIDS, and burn Jet A1.
It's a good topic, change is not always bad, running out of fuel is.
Last edited by Rogan82; 23rd Nov 2012 at 08:41.
Something to answer for AFT??
Kalavo
You make some great points regarding military v The civil world. Thanks for the insight.
In regards to the exam. Being accurate to 5 or 10 kg is ridiculous. Delays in taxi, changes in temp / wind, final load sheet from forecast/planned will blow that out. After all you are in the planning stage and being within 100-200 kg should be more than sufficient for an aircraft the size of a 727.
You make some great points regarding military v The civil world. Thanks for the insight.
In regards to the exam. Being accurate to 5 or 10 kg is ridiculous. Delays in taxi, changes in temp / wind, final load sheet from forecast/planned will blow that out. After all you are in the planning stage and being within 100-200 kg should be more than sufficient for an aircraft the size of a 727.
Last edited by Joker89; 23rd Nov 2012 at 07:54.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel for the chaps who have taken leave from work, paid for accommodation, paid transport to/from AFT and paid for the course.... only to fail the ATPL exams, with AFT as primary study reference i.e. NH.
I had a chat to Gavin Secombe today, CASA flight crew licensing. The conversation went similar to this, "we are well aware of the concerns with the ATPL Flight planning exam. Further, we are more concerned of the reason why so many candidates are failing. As I speak, I am marking random candidates workings for the CASA ATPL Flight planning exam, and am trying to establish a root cause".
I asked plainly, if you had copies of the working material from candidates whom sat the exam, he replied YES!
Watch this space.
I had a chat to Gavin Secombe today, CASA flight crew licensing. The conversation went similar to this, "we are well aware of the concerns with the ATPL Flight planning exam. Further, we are more concerned of the reason why so many candidates are failing. As I speak, I am marking random candidates workings for the CASA ATPL Flight planning exam, and am trying to establish a root cause".
I asked plainly, if you had copies of the working material from candidates whom sat the exam, he replied YES!
Watch this space.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that sounds (somewhat) promising.
Meantime I've booked again...hopefully its fixed by then. I'll give them a week (and a few sitting dates) to see if they can work something out.
Meantime I've booked again...hopefully its fixed by then. I'll give them a week (and a few sitting dates) to see if they can work something out.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: sydney area
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"we are well aware of the concerns with the ATPL Flight planning exam. Further, we are more concerned of the reason why so many candidates are failing. As I speak, I am marking random candidates workings for the CASA ATPL Flight planning exam, and am trying to establish a root cause"
Ummm, so there are two factors here. The candidates and the exam. As far as I can see the candidates haven't magically changed, nor has the way it is being taught (not just N.H.). G.S. claims nothing has changed with the exam, so why is there a 93% failure rate? Maybe its time for G.S. to look in the mirror for the real issue.
If there has been such a major change to the exam (which there obviously has been), then CASA needs to release new guidelines regarding the exam and content. This should have been done BEFORE the new exam came online.
As for the argument that the exam weeds pilots out of the system, I agree it is a good thing, BUT this is not the right way to do it. Don't go changing the goal posts without telling anyone and expect people to be ok with it. CASA is toying with peoples livelihoods.
Again, I urge people to make a complaint to CASA.
Farmer Dan.
Ummm, so there are two factors here. The candidates and the exam. As far as I can see the candidates haven't magically changed, nor has the way it is being taught (not just N.H.). G.S. claims nothing has changed with the exam, so why is there a 93% failure rate? Maybe its time for G.S. to look in the mirror for the real issue.
If there has been such a major change to the exam (which there obviously has been), then CASA needs to release new guidelines regarding the exam and content. This should have been done BEFORE the new exam came online.
As for the argument that the exam weeds pilots out of the system, I agree it is a good thing, BUT this is not the right way to do it. Don't go changing the goal posts without telling anyone and expect people to be ok with it. CASA is toying with peoples livelihoods.
Again, I urge people to make a complaint to CASA.
Farmer Dan.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farmer Dan
Apologies, vital information I should have included in my last post.
Gavin Secombe assures me the CASA ATPL Flight plan exam content and/ or questions have not changed.
Apologies, vital information I should have included in my last post.
Gavin Secombe assures me the CASA ATPL Flight plan exam content and/ or questions have not changed.
Gavin Secombe assures me the CASA ATPL Flight plan exam content and/ or questions have not changed.
Of course he assured you nothing changed....if he did then that would mean the logical explanation for all this lies at his/casa's end.
We can't have the regulator admitting they might have made an error.
The reality is that the candidates and course material had not changed. The issue has to be at the exam end.
So Gavin how about you level with us all and tell us what you changed?
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
We can't have the regulator admitting they might have made an error.
The reality is that the candidates and course material had not changed. The issue has to be at the exam end.
So Gavin how about you level with us all and tell us what you changed?
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not getting any arguments from me. Don't agree with how they've gone about solving this problem, but it's their train set, not mine.
They did the same thing way back when I sat mine... the time allowed for some exams magically increased by half hour due to the number of people failing.
It's been interesting the further I got in to the industry. Certainly noticed a huge number of pilot's spending more time trying to work out how to cheat, rather than learning the content. With everything from where answers could be hidden, to which exam centers were less likely to check what you brought in. Very disappointing to be honest and obviously a large problem for the regulator if they've decided to shake things up in such a massive way.
They did the same thing way back when I sat mine... the time allowed for some exams magically increased by half hour due to the number of people failing.
It's been interesting the further I got in to the industry. Certainly noticed a huge number of pilot's spending more time trying to work out how to cheat, rather than learning the content. With everything from where answers could be hidden, to which exam centers were less likely to check what you brought in. Very disappointing to be honest and obviously a large problem for the regulator if they've decided to shake things up in such a massive way.
Adding to my story so far (and thanks to those who offered suggestions) ...
I contacted the relevant person at CASA (GS). He had obviously had many enquiries about FPL but was polite, clear, and unwavering.
His position was:
- the exam was recently updated (we know that),
- there is no problem with the exam (NO PROBLEM!),
- they are looking into why the current pass rate is so low (but there is NO PROBLEM with the exam), wouldn't say what the pass rate is,
- he suggested I continue retaking the exam until I pass (though at 5% pass rate, it could be a long time before the dice rolls in my favour),
- he didn't consider that the answers were very specific/close, or to acknowledge the idea of some standard of accuracy.
He was very clear that if I did the question is the "correct" manner, I'd get the "correct" answer. The correct manner is partially specified by the ATPL exam guide (it does specify temp and weight rounding clearly) - but the guide doesn't specify how to interpolate winds, so I'm not sure what magic method he used to get the correct answer. My thoughts, magic method #1: always extrapolate accurately to exactly 1/2, 2/3 or the FL required. Magic method #2: use F185 for descent, F235 for climb, use nearest for cruise. Magic method #3: some combination of #1 and #2.
I'm unsurprised but pissed that this exam completely ignores the idea of testing the ability to flight plan to some level of accuracy - instead testing just that I know and can do just exactly what the examiner does. (It's like some of my Chinese PPL/CPL students asking what is the magic power setting I use for a perfect approach (they think it's perfect
) ... must be that magic setting that we are given when we obtain CPL and do that thing with the goat and the secret handshake. Depending on the day/student, I answer either: "1743 rpm", or "whatever power gives you a perfect profile for that approach".)
So it seems that, at the moment, CASA has effectively ceased to issue ATPLs, except to that 5% of people who got really lucky. I do hope that wasn't their intention. Can I spell "overseas licence conversion"?
I suggest everyone affected both contact CASA and submit official complaints. The more obvious this becomes, the less slowly it will be dealt with.
I contacted the relevant person at CASA (GS). He had obviously had many enquiries about FPL but was polite, clear, and unwavering.
His position was:
- the exam was recently updated (we know that),
- there is no problem with the exam (NO PROBLEM!),
- they are looking into why the current pass rate is so low (but there is NO PROBLEM with the exam), wouldn't say what the pass rate is,
- he suggested I continue retaking the exam until I pass (though at 5% pass rate, it could be a long time before the dice rolls in my favour),
- he didn't consider that the answers were very specific/close, or to acknowledge the idea of some standard of accuracy.
He was very clear that if I did the question is the "correct" manner, I'd get the "correct" answer. The correct manner is partially specified by the ATPL exam guide (it does specify temp and weight rounding clearly) - but the guide doesn't specify how to interpolate winds, so I'm not sure what magic method he used to get the correct answer. My thoughts, magic method #1: always extrapolate accurately to exactly 1/2, 2/3 or the FL required. Magic method #2: use F185 for descent, F235 for climb, use nearest for cruise. Magic method #3: some combination of #1 and #2.
I'm unsurprised but pissed that this exam completely ignores the idea of testing the ability to flight plan to some level of accuracy - instead testing just that I know and can do just exactly what the examiner does. (It's like some of my Chinese PPL/CPL students asking what is the magic power setting I use for a perfect approach (they think it's perfect
) ... must be that magic setting that we are given when we obtain CPL and do that thing with the goat and the secret handshake. Depending on the day/student, I answer either: "1743 rpm", or "whatever power gives you a perfect profile for that approach".)So it seems that, at the moment, CASA has effectively ceased to issue ATPLs, except to that 5% of people who got really lucky. I do hope that wasn't their intention. Can I spell "overseas licence conversion"?
I suggest everyone affected both contact CASA and submit official complaints. The more obvious this becomes, the less slowly it will be dealt with.
Last edited by drpixie; 25th Nov 2012 at 01:11.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He was very clear that if I did the question is the "correct" manner, I'd get the "correct" answer. The correct manner is partially specified by the ATPL exam guide (it does specify temp and weight rounding clearly) - but the guide doesn't specify how to interpolate winds, so I'm not sure what magic method he used to get the correct answer. My thoughts, magic method #1: always extrapolate accurately to exactly 1/2, 2/3 or the FL required. Magic method #2: use F185 for descent, F235 for climb, use nearest for cruise. Magic method #3: some combination of #1 and #2.
When I did flight planning, I used AFT but also bought Rod Avery's notes and they both used very different methods with different 'rules of thumbs' resulting in slightly different answers.