ATPL Flight Planning
Moderator
If I may stir the pot, just a little.
Background - did my SCPL/ATPL stuff back in the late 60s/early 70s. Taught the various subjects during the late 70s/early 80s and, for my sins and perverse interests, am back doing likewise these days. Some of us are just gluttons for punishment, I guess.
I suggest that
(a) the aircraft Type used in the exams matters not one iota - so long as it is a heavy jet or prop-jet and the exam requires the candidate to do the work, as opposed to airline flight planning where spoon-feeding is the go. It wouldn't really matter if the exam used an L188 or a B777 or, indeed, the old gentleman's aircraft as is the current flavour. The important thing is general understanding, knowledge and technical ability to figure out the answers.
(b) the theory exam ought not to be driven by practicality - that's for sim and line training/checking. The theory stuff provides an opportunity for the system to satisfy itself that the candidate does, indeed, have some sort of idea about what is what in running the sums sensibly. Ideally, it would be nice if the exams actually established a level of technical understanding. I make no comment as to whether I concur with the style and accuracy requirements of the exams these days - but that's just the path which the student/candidate has to follow and the phrase which readily comes to mind is "toughen up, sunshine".
(c) re comment in the thread about whether Brand A is preferable to Brand B or Brand C is fine - we all learn differently and we all respond better to different training techniques - if you get on better with Brand A, then use Brand A. Likewise Brand B, Brand C or whatever.
(d) learn the stuff and then practice, practice, practice. The exam material is not all that hard but, to get the pass, one has to handle the combination of a restrictive time limit and a high pass mark - that makes the exercise rather hard, no matter how one might look at it. Speed and accuracy is the buzz phrase here, I suggest.
(e) The issue these days is having the attitude of “I don’t need to know that, so I won’t learn it.” I have to admit that students with such an attitude do create more than a few problems for themselves.
As an afterthought, be aware that some of the various course notes around the place do have their errors although these don't appear to prevent folks gaining a pass along the road. For the aero engineer in me, though, it would be nice to think that those who purport to teach this stuff actually do have the requisite technical competence behind them to do so appropriately.
Background - did my SCPL/ATPL stuff back in the late 60s/early 70s. Taught the various subjects during the late 70s/early 80s and, for my sins and perverse interests, am back doing likewise these days. Some of us are just gluttons for punishment, I guess.
I suggest that
(a) the aircraft Type used in the exams matters not one iota - so long as it is a heavy jet or prop-jet and the exam requires the candidate to do the work, as opposed to airline flight planning where spoon-feeding is the go. It wouldn't really matter if the exam used an L188 or a B777 or, indeed, the old gentleman's aircraft as is the current flavour. The important thing is general understanding, knowledge and technical ability to figure out the answers.
(b) the theory exam ought not to be driven by practicality - that's for sim and line training/checking. The theory stuff provides an opportunity for the system to satisfy itself that the candidate does, indeed, have some sort of idea about what is what in running the sums sensibly. Ideally, it would be nice if the exams actually established a level of technical understanding. I make no comment as to whether I concur with the style and accuracy requirements of the exams these days - but that's just the path which the student/candidate has to follow and the phrase which readily comes to mind is "toughen up, sunshine".
(c) re comment in the thread about whether Brand A is preferable to Brand B or Brand C is fine - we all learn differently and we all respond better to different training techniques - if you get on better with Brand A, then use Brand A. Likewise Brand B, Brand C or whatever.
(d) learn the stuff and then practice, practice, practice. The exam material is not all that hard but, to get the pass, one has to handle the combination of a restrictive time limit and a high pass mark - that makes the exercise rather hard, no matter how one might look at it. Speed and accuracy is the buzz phrase here, I suggest.
(e) The issue these days is having the attitude of “I don’t need to know that, so I won’t learn it.” I have to admit that students with such an attitude do create more than a few problems for themselves.
As an afterthought, be aware that some of the various course notes around the place do have their errors although these don't appear to prevent folks gaining a pass along the road. For the aero engineer in me, though, it would be nice to think that those who purport to teach this stuff actually do have the requisite technical competence behind them to do so appropriately.
John tullamarine,
You need to be satisfied the student has an understanding? Is that why we need to do a 1inop gear down off track PNR and get the answer right to within 20kg of fuel? That is a ridiculous level of understanding not required to fly a modern jet transport aircraft. Or a DC9 etc.
That's just CASA thinking that the harder it makes exams the less blame it will get if there is an an accident. I can see the court case now.
Judge, So Mr CASA any idea why the plane crashed?
Casa, no your honour we gave a comprehensive test covering every possible scenario from floods to meteor strikes. It's not our fault we couldn't think of anymore outrageous things to test the pilots on.
You need to be satisfied the student has an understanding? Is that why we need to do a 1inop gear down off track PNR and get the answer right to within 20kg of fuel? That is a ridiculous level of understanding not required to fly a modern jet transport aircraft. Or a DC9 etc.
That's just CASA thinking that the harder it makes exams the less blame it will get if there is an an accident. I can see the court case now.
Judge, So Mr CASA any idea why the plane crashed?
Casa, no your honour we gave a comprehensive test covering every possible scenario from floods to meteor strikes. It's not our fault we couldn't think of anymore outrageous things to test the pilots on.
+1
It's sad when you tell a story to a cockpit colleague to pass the time, and that evolves into a tip or trick about, say, calculating the Last Point of Safe Diversion by map folding ... and you get a blank stare and "but this isn't in the manuals" as a reply... *sigh*
It's sad when you tell a story to a cockpit colleague to pass the time, and that evolves into a tip or trick about, say, calculating the Last Point of Safe Diversion by map folding ... and you get a blank stare and "but this isn't in the manuals" as a reply... *sigh*
John Tullamarine,
Got to agree with most of that. The subject is not about type/class training - it's about "is this person up to understanding and commanding an airliner"?
Having said that - the traditional lack of clarity around the requirements and results is disgusting. Parts of CASA do know better, but those managing this subject and the questions genuinely do not understand training or evaluation
Until those people retire (can't be far away) we're stuck with incomplete guidance (SOPs) and terrible use of unspecified methods ("the only correct answer is the one I get") rather than specific tolerances.
Got to agree with most of that. The subject is not about type/class training - it's about "is this person up to understanding and commanding an airliner"?
Having said that - the traditional lack of clarity around the requirements and results is disgusting. Parts of CASA do know better, but those managing this subject and the questions genuinely do not understand training or evaluation
Until those people retire (can't be far away) we're stuck with incomplete guidance (SOPs) and terrible use of unspecified methods ("the only correct answer is the one I get") rather than specific tolerances.
Moderator
Stir the pot and get some discussion.
You need to be satisfied the student has an understanding? Indeed, otherwise the instructor is taking the money under false pretenses, I suggest. Unfortunately, it is a matter of regret that some instructors struggle to get up even to the level of the blind leading the blind.
Is that why we need to do a 1inop gear down off track PNR and get the answer right to within 20kg of fuel? That is a ridiculous level of understanding not required to fly a modern jet transport aircraft. Or a DC9 etc. Of course I concur with you - that's why I observed in my previous post - "I make no comment as to whether I concur with the style and accuracy requirements of the exams these days". However, the Regulator calls the shots and the candidate has to run the gauntlet, regardless.
you get a blank look and a reply “What does that mean? Lots of you old blokes say it! One can only observe that struggling to achieve a performance goal below the lowest common denominator is rather sad.
we're stuck with incomplete guidance (SOPs) and terrible use of unspecified methods ("the only correct answer is the one I get") rather than specific tolerances. Perhaps the examiner isn't able to call the shots in isolation and is subject to constraints outside his immediate domain ?
You need to be satisfied the student has an understanding? Indeed, otherwise the instructor is taking the money under false pretenses, I suggest. Unfortunately, it is a matter of regret that some instructors struggle to get up even to the level of the blind leading the blind.
Is that why we need to do a 1inop gear down off track PNR and get the answer right to within 20kg of fuel? That is a ridiculous level of understanding not required to fly a modern jet transport aircraft. Or a DC9 etc. Of course I concur with you - that's why I observed in my previous post - "I make no comment as to whether I concur with the style and accuracy requirements of the exams these days". However, the Regulator calls the shots and the candidate has to run the gauntlet, regardless.
you get a blank look and a reply “What does that mean? Lots of you old blokes say it! One can only observe that struggling to achieve a performance goal below the lowest common denominator is rather sad.
we're stuck with incomplete guidance (SOPs) and terrible use of unspecified methods ("the only correct answer is the one I get") rather than specific tolerances. Perhaps the examiner isn't able to call the shots in isolation and is subject to constraints outside his immediate domain ?
John I think the only people who can change CASAs mind are the ones who teach it.
I fear, maybe wrongly I hope that some peoples business models rely on the ATPL exams being overly complicated. This may cause them to influence CASA into not changing them.
I fear, maybe wrongly I hope that some peoples business models rely on the ATPL exams being overly complicated. This may cause them to influence CASA into not changing them.
Moderator
This may cause them to influence CASA into not changing them.
That may be the case although I suspect not.
In ancient times we used to have post exam review panel meetings between Industry theory trainers and the then DCA theory examiner. I can recall attending a few of these, I guess in the late 70s (?), when I was tied up with Noel Lamont's organisation at Essendon. Indeed, they also involved occasional reviews of the exam question banks with robust discussion along the lines of endeavouring to weed out silly questions. More usefully, for the students, the actual examinations were made available for study use. These would be worked by trainers and provided to the students as part of their practice workup for subsequent exams. The student could purchase various solutions to get a sound idea of the ways one might usefully approach the sorts of questions which might be posed. It certainly wasn't a case of learning how to answer a "standard" question as the examiners had enough nouse to tweak question styles so that a reasonable level of understanding was necessary to solve them. The main value lay in giving an idea of the sorts of question styles which the examiner might pose. I had students who were comparatively brilliant ranging to comparatively slow - the former, generally, had little problem, the latter just needed to knuckle down and hit the books until it eventually sunk in. Indeed, one of my favourite students was in the latter category - he struggled for quite a while to get his passes and had concurrent financial difficulties/pressures along the way. He eventually ended up, quite successfully, in senior airline training and checking appointments and had a very successful career.
By comparison, I think the present "secret exam business" approach is counterproductive although it may well simplify the Regulator's workload requirements.
As I recall, many of the present sorts of criticism leveled at the exam questions were common back then as well. The poor old examiner just can't win - make the questions a bit searching or pointed and the muppets react, make them too simple and the purists likewise.
Right or wrong, I have a simple approach -
(a) the trainer must teach the ins and outs of the topic so that the student can understand the story and have sufficient competence and confidence to figure out solutions to problems.
(b) the student has to be brought up to a standard relating to speed and accuracy from which the exam pass is feasibly achievable. That involves drilling in speed and accuracy. If there be anything I might complain about, it is the time limit and pass mark constraints. Comparing this to the old university days, we had what was fondly referred to as the "zero shifting theorem". The philosophy was that the student cohorts, from year to year, were more or less similar in typical capability so, if the raw results varied markedly from the norm then, just perhaps, the problem lay with the exam rather than the cohort; ergo, the pass mark was flexible and, consistent with reasonable consideration, might vary a little to accommodate the situation. Pass rate was seen to be more relevant than pass mark
It doesn't fuss me what the exam question standard is - that is the Regulator's province. If the trainer has done a sound job, the student ought not to have too torrid a time achieving a pass even should the questions be rather more searching than last time. I really think the problem lies with those folks who want an easy ride and, when they don't get one, are vocal in their complaining.
Perhaps I'm just getting to be an olde pharte who is saddened by the pressure seen to dumb things down. Sure, as time goes by, some stuff becomes of decreasing relevance overall and falls into the category of historical oddities - sextants might be an example ? However, dumbing stuff down for dumbing down's sake can only be a foolish goal, in my simple view of life.
That may be the case although I suspect not.
In ancient times we used to have post exam review panel meetings between Industry theory trainers and the then DCA theory examiner. I can recall attending a few of these, I guess in the late 70s (?), when I was tied up with Noel Lamont's organisation at Essendon. Indeed, they also involved occasional reviews of the exam question banks with robust discussion along the lines of endeavouring to weed out silly questions. More usefully, for the students, the actual examinations were made available for study use. These would be worked by trainers and provided to the students as part of their practice workup for subsequent exams. The student could purchase various solutions to get a sound idea of the ways one might usefully approach the sorts of questions which might be posed. It certainly wasn't a case of learning how to answer a "standard" question as the examiners had enough nouse to tweak question styles so that a reasonable level of understanding was necessary to solve them. The main value lay in giving an idea of the sorts of question styles which the examiner might pose. I had students who were comparatively brilliant ranging to comparatively slow - the former, generally, had little problem, the latter just needed to knuckle down and hit the books until it eventually sunk in. Indeed, one of my favourite students was in the latter category - he struggled for quite a while to get his passes and had concurrent financial difficulties/pressures along the way. He eventually ended up, quite successfully, in senior airline training and checking appointments and had a very successful career.
By comparison, I think the present "secret exam business" approach is counterproductive although it may well simplify the Regulator's workload requirements.
As I recall, many of the present sorts of criticism leveled at the exam questions were common back then as well. The poor old examiner just can't win - make the questions a bit searching or pointed and the muppets react, make them too simple and the purists likewise.
Right or wrong, I have a simple approach -
(a) the trainer must teach the ins and outs of the topic so that the student can understand the story and have sufficient competence and confidence to figure out solutions to problems.
(b) the student has to be brought up to a standard relating to speed and accuracy from which the exam pass is feasibly achievable. That involves drilling in speed and accuracy. If there be anything I might complain about, it is the time limit and pass mark constraints. Comparing this to the old university days, we had what was fondly referred to as the "zero shifting theorem". The philosophy was that the student cohorts, from year to year, were more or less similar in typical capability so, if the raw results varied markedly from the norm then, just perhaps, the problem lay with the exam rather than the cohort; ergo, the pass mark was flexible and, consistent with reasonable consideration, might vary a little to accommodate the situation. Pass rate was seen to be more relevant than pass mark
It doesn't fuss me what the exam question standard is - that is the Regulator's province. If the trainer has done a sound job, the student ought not to have too torrid a time achieving a pass even should the questions be rather more searching than last time. I really think the problem lies with those folks who want an easy ride and, when they don't get one, are vocal in their complaining.
Perhaps I'm just getting to be an olde pharte who is saddened by the pressure seen to dumb things down. Sure, as time goes by, some stuff becomes of decreasing relevance overall and falls into the category of historical oddities - sextants might be an example ? However, dumbing stuff down for dumbing down's sake can only be a foolish goal, in my simple view of life.
Perhaps I'm just getting to be an olde pharte who is saddened by the pressure seen to dumb things down.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,970
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
how ridiculous the CASA exams are.
He once remarked that in one exam on a particular subject, he thought some of the questions were somewhat 'over the top...', and was subsequently unsurprised but somewhat amused to learn that at the bottom of the exam paper a candidate had boldly written the words...
"The Examiner is a pedantic Twit!!"
I believe the candidate still passed though.
Moderator
how ridiculous the CASA exams are
Again, I don't hold much in the way of views on what the Regulator might/ought to examine - that's the province of the Regulator and we, in the Industry, have to run with it as presented. Your view, however, is respected.
I spent an hour or so yesterday watching videos on aviation bubble sextants and celestial navigation.
Well done, that man !
Again, I don't hold much in the way of views on what the Regulator might/ought to examine - that's the province of the Regulator and we, in the Industry, have to run with it as presented. Your view, however, is respected.
I spent an hour or so yesterday watching videos on aviation bubble sextants and celestial navigation.
Well done, that man !
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if anyone is still here but I just passed doing the online course from aviation theory services. I tried studying with AFT but it just didn't make sense. At least this had videos I could go back and watch when I'd forgotten stuff. Does anyone have an extract for ATPL Air Law since it changed? TIA
I've said this a couple of times, but...
The exam shouldn't be on an airline type. Airlines have heaps of support - especially in the computer age.
The exam should be on a Westwind medivac flight to Norfolk, or a Learjet flight to Darwin. Something that you'll actually have to fly without support....
The exam shouldn't be on an airline type. Airlines have heaps of support - especially in the computer age.
The exam should be on a Westwind medivac flight to Norfolk, or a Learjet flight to Darwin. Something that you'll actually have to fly without support....
If you want practical applications, for a helo ATPL you had to at one time study the 767 EFIS system and pressurisation, and that was some three or so decades ago. Where are all those pressurised helicopters?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously think something is seriously not right with this exam. I'm not the smartest tool in the shed but when I started ATPL, I managed to sit 3 exams in 3 weeks and all of them passed well with plenty of time to spare. Comes to flight planning studied with AFT, I used to get over 90% in practice exams with an average question done in the usual 15 minutes. I get to sit the exam and I get a miserable 44%, second time, same... Exam with some 18 questions, 4-5 multi-choice and the rest type in. When I did it, it seemed pretty easy and similar to AFT, pretty much straightforward. Why do I think this exam could be either rigged or not processed properly or made up not to be processed properly?
And by the way, if they changed the exam because of the cheat to make safety priority, I don't understand any safety in leaving the "bloke from the day/month before" who did flight planning with credits as they don't know if he cheated (and most of others) or not. If that is really a worry for them, they should cancel that exam and let all others redo (just that) to be sure. Now some ATPL out there might fly planes after (maybe for some) cheating on exams and CASA knows it.
So, how come this drop in the pass rate after the questions have been changed? AFT is the same, aviation theory centre book is the same, people are different but the "same" with the same intellectual properties...so in this big equation only 1 thing has changed and that is the exam itself where either is rigged or can't be processed properly because there is no right answer. I don't care what CASA says about the pass rate, they can say whatever they want. I know that other people I know, couldn't pass it too.
The big problem I have is after all this work in converting my PPL, do CPL and MECIR, all time-consuming and expensive, all self study, I get stuck on this flight planning which gave me some kind of insecure feeling making me question my abilities to do things. I know I'm good and can get things done right but in this case, I got this feeling, especially in aviation where I think need to be not 100% perfect because no one is, but almost.
I have no issues with the 727 used as I understand is getting the process done right, then starting fresh with the working aircraft without getting confused but this really hurt me and I also have no problem in pushing until I make it but at this point, I simply don't trust this exam. I'm confident this exam is very easy but something is not right at all. I get a lot that "I think too much" and then after a while, I get the "you were right" too after they look into it.
Now I'm left with a CPL/MECIR and doubts about myself because I think maybe if I didn't pass that because I'm really not ready, It may be possible that I can't take the right decisions and better off stopping flying for a bit which increases some form of insecurity too because start not to remember everything.
I might try to give it another go just to get to pass it just to pass the time at this point. I'm not trying to be right but I smell something not right at all.
Deeply inside. I hope I'm wrong and I probably needed to study more but 95% on simulated exams in less than 3 hrs straight locked in a room with no distractions, makes me question ....a lot.
If someone is in some form of similar situation, come forward or inbox me privately because either is only me, or a lot of us and if is a lot of us then something needs to be done.
Cheers
- With all the exams (CPL/IREX) I did like all of us, after you submit, always took the system some 10-15 seconds to spit out the verdict. This one literally took half a second or even less.
- AFT and the aviation theory centre give different ways to approximate or get EMZW and some other data. I pick on really small things and errors and I picked that. Told Gavin because they suggest aviation theory centre, and he agreed saying to tell them. I did a test exam following aviation theory centre and the same following AFT and the answer was a mile off.
- How do we know what the "error window" is for the typed-in answers? eg: the answer is 500, you say 505 but the system gives you between 494 and 504. Now you are wrong. But maybe another day, that window can open up a bit making the answer right... there is no transparency at all and I think is fair to at least pick the error and show it....not the full working but just that wrong step (if any).
And by the way, if they changed the exam because of the cheat to make safety priority, I don't understand any safety in leaving the "bloke from the day/month before" who did flight planning with credits as they don't know if he cheated (and most of others) or not. If that is really a worry for them, they should cancel that exam and let all others redo (just that) to be sure. Now some ATPL out there might fly planes after (maybe for some) cheating on exams and CASA knows it.
So, how come this drop in the pass rate after the questions have been changed? AFT is the same, aviation theory centre book is the same, people are different but the "same" with the same intellectual properties...so in this big equation only 1 thing has changed and that is the exam itself where either is rigged or can't be processed properly because there is no right answer. I don't care what CASA says about the pass rate, they can say whatever they want. I know that other people I know, couldn't pass it too.
The big problem I have is after all this work in converting my PPL, do CPL and MECIR, all time-consuming and expensive, all self study, I get stuck on this flight planning which gave me some kind of insecure feeling making me question my abilities to do things. I know I'm good and can get things done right but in this case, I got this feeling, especially in aviation where I think need to be not 100% perfect because no one is, but almost.
I have no issues with the 727 used as I understand is getting the process done right, then starting fresh with the working aircraft without getting confused but this really hurt me and I also have no problem in pushing until I make it but at this point, I simply don't trust this exam. I'm confident this exam is very easy but something is not right at all. I get a lot that "I think too much" and then after a while, I get the "you were right" too after they look into it.
Now I'm left with a CPL/MECIR and doubts about myself because I think maybe if I didn't pass that because I'm really not ready, It may be possible that I can't take the right decisions and better off stopping flying for a bit which increases some form of insecurity too because start not to remember everything.
I might try to give it another go just to get to pass it just to pass the time at this point. I'm not trying to be right but I smell something not right at all.
Deeply inside. I hope I'm wrong and I probably needed to study more but 95% on simulated exams in less than 3 hrs straight locked in a room with no distractions, makes me question ....a lot.
If someone is in some form of similar situation, come forward or inbox me privately because either is only me, or a lot of us and if is a lot of us then something needs to be done.
Cheers
I feel your pain mate. I studied flight planning for months (self studied from an old set of AFT notes), was getting high scores and good times on practice exams. Had a go. 52%. I'll chalk this up to poor exam technique, I tried the 5 markers first strategy, but my first one was insanely difficult and I wasted far too much time on it and was stressed trying to rush the rest of the exam trying to catch up.
Studied some more, practiced the areas I'd scored poorly in, sat it again. 62%. Annoyingly I got a 5 marker wrong, which was the difference between a pass and a fail.
On my third attempt the entire ASPEQ server crashed and everyone got sent home with no result after an hour of waiting. On my third (fourth?) actual attempt I finally passed.
It's not a fair exam, but it can be beaten. Pray for backwards plans, PNR/DP, alpha to bravos and some payload questions because they're free marks. Brush up on your normal ops PNRs, AFT completely glossed over this and it definitely cost me my first attempt.
If you have AFT notes, the APLA syllabus actually explains how to do payload questions, which again they completely neglect to explain for AFPA (too busy teaching you EPR corrections even though it's not examined).
If you're going to do your 5 markers first, manage your time carefully. If you feel yourself getting bogged down, skip the question and come back later. This is a mental game, you need to smash out some easy questions and feel like you're under control. The questions vary enormously in difficulty so if you come across a bull**** one just skip it for later. Good luck.
Studied some more, practiced the areas I'd scored poorly in, sat it again. 62%. Annoyingly I got a 5 marker wrong, which was the difference between a pass and a fail.
On my third attempt the entire ASPEQ server crashed and everyone got sent home with no result after an hour of waiting. On my third (fourth?) actual attempt I finally passed.
It's not a fair exam, but it can be beaten. Pray for backwards plans, PNR/DP, alpha to bravos and some payload questions because they're free marks. Brush up on your normal ops PNRs, AFT completely glossed over this and it definitely cost me my first attempt.
If you have AFT notes, the APLA syllabus actually explains how to do payload questions, which again they completely neglect to explain for AFPA (too busy teaching you EPR corrections even though it's not examined).
If you're going to do your 5 markers first, manage your time carefully. If you feel yourself getting bogged down, skip the question and come back later. This is a mental game, you need to smash out some easy questions and feel like you're under control. The questions vary enormously in difficulty so if you come across a bull**** one just skip it for later. Good luck.
The following users liked this post:
Very true, you need absolutely no flight planning knowledge to drive a 737 / A320 up and down the east coast. Taken to absurdity, all you need to know is how to start the engines, read a checklist and turn the autopilot on. Some rudimentary taxiing and flying skills might also be convenient.
There may be a case for CASA to issue “Restricted” ATPLs which are only valid while the holder is in the employ of specific airlines who meet some operational criteria. I wouldn’t doubt that one could train a 50 hour PPL holder to operate a simulator A320 up and down the coast in less than 200 hours. Then one year RHS to get the hang of line operations and then a command.
And this is why airline managers and aircraft manufacturers are working away at designing uncrewed or, at the very least, minimally crewed aircraft. The less you need to know to perform a task, the easier it is to automate.
There may be a case for CASA to issue “Restricted” ATPLs which are only valid while the holder is in the employ of specific airlines who meet some operational criteria. I wouldn’t doubt that one could train a 50 hour PPL holder to operate a simulator A320 up and down the coast in less than 200 hours. Then one year RHS to get the hang of line operations and then a command.
And this is why airline managers and aircraft manufacturers are working away at designing uncrewed or, at the very least, minimally crewed aircraft. The less you need to know to perform a task, the easier it is to automate.
Please tell me I'm not the oldest in here. I did mine in the early 80's it was a the seagull Mk5, a modified Boeing 707, astro nav and grid nav on a mercator was still in the syllabus but being phased out. I did it fulltime at tafe in sydney, the lecturer was an ex QF navigator named Doug Nolan, a delightful guy. He enjoyed a 100% pass rate.
IMHO, there is no substitute for rule of thumb, if you can calculate a heading and time interval from any point in space to an adequate runway and fuel required/remaining in less than one minute in your head, that's all you need. The same applies to a PNR. Keep it simple. I don't see a need for ATPL flight planning theory at all, the subject material would be better served if it were heavy jet principles of flight.
IMHO, there is no substitute for rule of thumb, if you can calculate a heading and time interval from any point in space to an adequate runway and fuel required/remaining in less than one minute in your head, that's all you need. The same applies to a PNR. Keep it simple. I don't see a need for ATPL flight planning theory at all, the subject material would be better served if it were heavy jet principles of flight.
The following users liked this post:
I couldn't agree more with Xeptu. If CASA want candidates to reach a specific academic level at least make them sit for exams that may be relevant in their chosen airline careers.
Like many previous posters I did the SCPL subjects in '68, I studied it with Noel Lamont, great guy. Anyway very little was useful except maybe to re-learn how to knuckle down and study. Many of my classmates had not flown even oen hour and most of us had never seen a DME or a VOR, so it was a purely an academic exercise then and apparently still that way. I'll never forget Question 1 of the Nav exam, SYD to NADI track and distance to be solved using Meridianol parts. No multi choice and all marks depended on the workings shown by the candidate, the answers depended on the accuracy of following the graphs, logarithms and the thickness of the lead in the pencil in Flt planning
Unsurprisingly ATPL subjects were just as useless in other parts of the world. In the late '80's I had to do the HKG CAD ATPL exams due to a bureaucratic hissy fit between DCA ( Aust) and CAD( HKG) at the time. Anyway the exams were made up by British CAA and were presented only a few hours different between the candidates in the colony and Blighty. There were around 7 subjects I think with 2 meteorology exams, instruments, radio aids, nav, Flt planning, some performance I vaguely recall. One of the mets. was based on a BOAC ( long since defunct) in a 4 engine piston powered monster multi sector flight from London to Cairo with a need to describe the expected weather en route and at each port for that time of year, the haboob, the mistral and any other local weather phenomena needed to be studied. Nought to do with the fragrant harbour and environs. To top all that of when all subjects passed it would not be recognised by the CAA as it required a CAA invigilator to oversee the exam. !!!!!!!
Like many previous posters I did the SCPL subjects in '68, I studied it with Noel Lamont, great guy. Anyway very little was useful except maybe to re-learn how to knuckle down and study. Many of my classmates had not flown even oen hour and most of us had never seen a DME or a VOR, so it was a purely an academic exercise then and apparently still that way. I'll never forget Question 1 of the Nav exam, SYD to NADI track and distance to be solved using Meridianol parts. No multi choice and all marks depended on the workings shown by the candidate, the answers depended on the accuracy of following the graphs, logarithms and the thickness of the lead in the pencil in Flt planning
Unsurprisingly ATPL subjects were just as useless in other parts of the world. In the late '80's I had to do the HKG CAD ATPL exams due to a bureaucratic hissy fit between DCA ( Aust) and CAD( HKG) at the time. Anyway the exams were made up by British CAA and were presented only a few hours different between the candidates in the colony and Blighty. There were around 7 subjects I think with 2 meteorology exams, instruments, radio aids, nav, Flt planning, some performance I vaguely recall. One of the mets. was based on a BOAC ( long since defunct) in a 4 engine piston powered monster multi sector flight from London to Cairo with a need to describe the expected weather en route and at each port for that time of year, the haboob, the mistral and any other local weather phenomena needed to be studied. Nought to do with the fragrant harbour and environs. To top all that of when all subjects passed it would not be recognised by the CAA as it required a CAA invigilator to oversee the exam. !!!!!!!