Mate, don't tell me you went into an Air Law exam without an AIP?

I found Air Law the easiest of the CPL's, as you just tag the hell out of all the doc's and get to know them back to front - if you know where to find the answers then it has to be impossible to stuff it up. It basically turns into an open book exam.

povopilot.

Yer well said!!! make every newbie have to do the HARD yards like pilots before them.... Make every newbie work for condition less than the poverty line, Make every Pilot work his first job for free, make every newbie pay for his endorsement, make every newbie put up with Management that treats it's pilots with less respect than a Manigrida camp dog.

The pilots of yester year have truly paved the path for the newbies to have a long and lustrous career, paying for endorsement, excepting C$%P EBA"s, lying down to CASA etc, ect, etc .....

Your attitude of "I did it tough, so every other bastard has to as well" smells of a person who has spent his career, ass sniffing his way to what ever whole you are in now.


Integro..... Congratulations in having the balls to dispute your exam results with CASA, dont let these bitter and twisted w@nkers on here stop you from demanding what is fair. I hope you have success with your exams and hope you dont lose your grit like the twits on here have.

It's a long career, keeping your intigrity makes it so much more enjoyable.:ok: unless you get enjoyment about boasting how tough you have had it....




p.s to the spelling police.... I dont care...:E

Integro buddy, in short, you are going to get no where with CASA or ASL in relation to this. I'm on my last CPL exam and have noticed wrong questions in the exams i've done. They won't change them mate. Just have to move on, i know it sucks but thats the way casa roll.

too right
 

If the guy has missed out by a bees dick then why not dispute if he believes he should have got through. Those Casa exams are an irrelevant pain in the arse. Streuth, if I failed ATPL flight planning by 1% and reckon i got a hard deal I'd give CASA the full Darryl Kerrigan treatment!

It sure is..... and those choices that we make effect the industry as a whole...

The exams are hard, and one doesn't always agree with the answers, but they set the rules. Many before have passed. So just have a stiff drink and (next day) book another test, do some more study, and you will pass. Get over it.........

Jesus, talk about a case of 'back in my day!'. Let me guess, you had to walk 40 miles to school in the driving snow back home in Dubbo?

:rolleyes:

If you're right and you know it, you should bloody fight for the correct result. The concept that you should just swallow it and be proud of the fact that you're a down trodden idiot is hopefully a dying one.

And yes, I got 100% for CPL and ATPL law.

CASA (ASL) exams are unjustifiably expensive. I did my first exam a few weeks ago and, after forking out $170 for it, the supervisor was 20 mins late and the exam arrangements were less then satisfactory. :*

If you think you can claw the extra marks out of them, go for it mate! :ok:

The Regs are written to allow a blind or deaf person to take his or her dog on board. You have allowed yourself to get tangled up in the regs in a belief that CASA is out to get you rather than in what ther regs are trying to achieve. I have read the regs that you have sighted and I believe that you are wrong. My decision is not based on what I believe should happen but on my interpretation of the regs and I don't believe that you have a case.

Car 256a
 

As I have stated before the key to passing CASA exams is to look for the key words in the question. In this case the key words are blind/deaf. Or more accurately “visually or hearing impaired”. Therefore the question was pointing you to 256(A)(2).:eek:

The fact that they don’t give you 256A(2)(a) or (b) as an answer is irrelevant, what they are looking for is that you can find the relevant section of the Regulation and in this case 256A(1)(a) does not apply. Most people will only read the first section of the Regulation eg 256A(1)(a) and select that answer. The first part of a Regulation states its purpose as dictated by the ACT and then the rest give you the exceptions.

Don’t try and extrapolate outside the question, as soon as you apply “what ifs” you will get it wrong.

Slight Drift......

Back in 'dem good ole days - KG FSU -

"Taxying, IMT, KG for MEEKA, 2 on board, me and me dog".

True story. Good old Mr 'Mc' - he was 80 then - a legend! :ok:

One day he departed sans dog. Forgot he'd left it in the shade of the unit.
"Ah...can you fellas look after him till I get back?"

He picked it up on the return trip - some 2 - 3 weeks later. :)

(Couldn't imagine he even knew about the regs....)

oh the memories...



mate pretty straight forward exam just dont read into it as much its all there in black and white...

agree with the posts on here just resit and suck it up.

next time read the question and note the keywords... nipper has it all there.

dogs in cargo exception is if its accompanying a seeing/hearing impaired person. sorry but if you didnt put the restrained in cabin and you said in a box in cargo your wrong.

you said it yourself

about the pee and shiit mate they are trained to put up with it and would be very surprised if that happened in your "rea life" situation and wouldnt you just walk it before anyway. I have had grown people pee on seats before think a dogs would be better to clean up.

Hate to break it to ya but this isn't like at school where everyone was a winner and points were awarded for trying. Life isn't fair . Don't waste too much energy trying to make it that way cause it just won't happen. Instead of writing emails study some law and try to pass it.

Well said :ok::D

after reading this thread i can't believe how many bitter and twisted people there are in aviaition.

fight the question integro, take it to CASA and bloody ASL, they are both a bunch of rip off artists

....'splinter11' couldn't agree with you more. And to think we are ALL meant to be professionals here.. huh !



CW

I think anyone here has a story of an exam they had trouble with somewhere along the line. For me it was SCPL/ATPL Flight Planning. It was based on the 727-200 and it was the only exam I've ever failed-twice!! Can you imagine how bad that made me feel!

It's good to be able to laugh about it now.

It is contestable if the question is overly misleading (although aren't they all?) or wrong.

ATPL Law 3 years ago, passed no worries but one question gave me the irits as it was crap and could be very easily misinterpreted.

Two phone calls and it was pulled.

They are reasonable when it's easily fixed and an obivious flaw.

As an aviation lawyer, may I say that at law the answer is entirely clear; if there is no absorbant pad and no reference to the dog being restrained, it MUST be carried in a container. No ifs and no buts; the parts of the Reg are cumulative, not disjunctive, and in the real world if you tried to carry a seeing eye dog with a blind handler without an absorbant pad and a restraint you would be completely stuffed on landing when the Inspector greeted you. The question is either wrong or so misleading as to be wrong.

Heh... I did CPL Law here in NZ a short while ago...

One of the questions was relating to General Aviation Area's... ie. a "simple" lookup in the AIP about the requirements for activating, the controlling authority and the comm frequency to do so...

Unfortunately, the AIP's had been amended in the weeks leading up to the exam and of course the GAA in question had been modified (from ATC Approval to ATC Notification and the frequency had changed)...

Unfortunately, this meant that there were 2 completely wrong answers... and 2 half correct answers... one had correct activation type but incorrect frequency, the other had incorrect activation type but correct frequency.

I wrote a minor essay in the review/critique section at the end, justifying my answer...

Of course, I still got it 'wrong' (judging by the KDR's I got)... :ugh: :rolleyes:

Thankfully, I still passed comfortably...