Everything you said above demonstrates where you are at. Enjoy those rose coloured glasses.

Let me know when you find a place for a good endorsement in Australia too :)

No need to get personal GG, I'm asking with genuine interest. How am I supposed to learn more about flight planning, if I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking at outside of what CASA stipulates in their own syllabus?

morno, please understand that the ATPL exams, with some very minor bits out of certain subjects, have absolutely nothing to do with the real world of aviation, certainly not Flight Planning. They are merely a regulatory hurdle over which you must jump to attain the ATPL, nothing more. Anything to do with actually flying the aircraft will be taught later during the endorsement stage.

PLovett, well aware of that. I'm not a 500hr pilot with no idea.

What I'm more asking is if Green Goblin is telling us we should spend months studying for these exams, but then says I have no clue when I've studied the relevant material, then what else am I supposed to be learning about?

morno

haha this would have to be the funniest thread i have read in a long time:D thank's for making me laugh tonight guys. 'Awww I failed flight planning blame it on CASA' wtf?!?! Drink some cement and H H H Harden the **** UP!!

I completed all of my ATPLs prior to this debacle so have not had any experience with the current flight planning exam but I don't think it would be fair to blame AFT in this instance. A few of you seem to be gauging the exam on the pass & failure rates of the AFT classes but there are a few things that you need to consider.

Firstly, everyone's different, for some people 2 weeks in the class room is pretty intense and they feel like they need to sit the exam straight after the 2 weeks because they have put the pressure on themselves to do so because they are booked in for the next subject. When in actual fact, if they went away for a week and just practised and focused on building speed and accuracy they would come out with a much better result.

Secondly, a lot pf people attending the AFT course think it is a quick fix and guaranteed pass, unfortunately these people do the bare minimum of work in and out of class and expect it to be enough. It's not!

Thirdly, many pilots have been working full time and haven't had the time to self study, let alone go on a holiday, they have chosen to do the AFT course during their leave. This makes it hard for them to focus on spending their free time out of class studying, there are a few distractions nearby, the beach, pubs, family members or friends in Brisbane or the surrounds and this diverts their attention from what they should really be doing to get through the exam. Don't get me wrong, it's not easy or healthy locking yourself away and doing nothing but studying, you will need breaks! It's a fine line though.

This is all quite broad and not everyone falls into these categories but I've been up and done the AFT course and seen all of the above happen. Yes Flight Planning is not the easiest exam and I saw quite a few of my classmates who had studied their guts out, just miss out on a pass. But generally, the outcome depends on the work put in and most of the guys that only just failed would probably have benefitted from an extra week of practice.

If there is any advice I could give, try not to put too much pressure on yourselves, the AFT course is full on and can get tiring, if you're one of those people that need a bit of time to reconcile for yourself what was learnt in class, take that time! You don't need to sit all 4 subjects one after the other, AFT will let you break it up over a few courses.

Good luck :ok:

I am not sure what you mean by " the current format" but I found the flight planing course at AFT second to none. I failed my first attempt and then I realised that I needed more time to self study and practice because the smallest error means you lose the 5 marks and then there is a good chance that you will fail the exam. Even though i had put alot of effort into it, 2 weeks was not enough. I needed more time to self study to benefit from the subject and the exam. I liked the fact that it was hard, challenging and based on the 727. It's old, its complicated and it's a reality to check. Anyways, So I decided to leave the course, go back home and self study the exam on my own. I studied the subject, did all the exercises and prac exams over and over and over again until I got 100%."trial and error" So, then when I felt comfortable with the exam I went and sat the exam and I think I got 88%. It's just one of those exams guys! I am sorry to say, you just need to learn the subject and the skills to pass this exam! unfortunately, there are no short cuts with this exam.

Im pretty sure around 2006 when i did AFT there were only about 15 out of 40 odd who passed.. Some get it straight away, others didn't. It's a fast moving 2 weeks and you either get it and do the exam, or it snowballs and you end up not understanding half of what you do.

This thread has drifted significantly from whence it came - archangel7 and other recent contributors, please note that this was not originally a "boo hoo, ATPL flight planning is too hard" thread, but a thread detailing the sudden, and apparently unexplained drop in passes for this subject. I was one of the large number of people who went into the exam confident of my abilities and understanding of the subject and failed dismally. The ATPL theory providers around Australia (NOT just AFT) are scratching their heads as to the reason why their students are doing so poorly in the exam. The following is info I have gleaned from my emails/letters/phone calls to CASA and other affected organisations/individuals:
- CASA changed their Flight Planning questions in response to evidence of cheating
- the fail rate has skyrocketed
- CASA steadfastly claim there is nothing wrong/different with their exam other than changes to the data in the questions
- there is only one individual responsible for implementing the changes to the questions, a former ATPL theory provider
My concerns focus on the "who's checking the checker?" situation that arises when an individual implements changes and then conducts his own workings to arrive at an answer. In my opinion only, it is clear that this gentleman, through no malice mind you, has his own slant on how to calculate these answers - which could be different enough to arrive at a different result to that of all the students who have been studying with the various theory providers.
Anyone who has done Flight Planning would agree that using slightly different levels of interpolation can result in different answers - and yes, I know that the level of interpolation is published by CASA, but there is SO much room for that "personal touch".
So, note that this thread is about the seismic shift in recent results due to a known change to the exam database, not a bunch of whingers who haven't done enough work.

UNSW
 

Just wondering if anyone has had any feedback regarding the ATPL classes at UNSW.

Certainly my experience too, though that was years ago. The late John Bally
was a CAA and DOT examiner of airmen then FOI. . . very emphatic on this subject.
(Well he was a Hungarian. . . . . nicknamed 'The hairy hound from Budapest')

'It is not a test so much to see what you know but how good you are at
applying yourself to the discipline of study.' is pretty close to the message he tried to get across to young uncomprehending students. grrr. . . grrr

For those wanting an idea about what's on the current FP exam - I've seen the before (old - a couple of years ago), during (new/broken) and after (current) exams. I just re-sat it and passed – hooray - not a great pass but they do say "anything over 70% is just showing off". :O

Having seen the range of exams, I think the current exam is similar to the 'old' (pre- all the fuss) exam but I perhaps a little harder. I didn't have much time remaining for double checking anything. The current exam certainly much more do-able than the 'new' ("nothing has changed but somehow no one is passing") exam from around Nov/Dec. :ugh:

My feeling is that the exam now involves a bit more work (and thus pressure). A couple of the old easy questions about turbulence limits, 2 engine out perf, etc are gone (those marks replaced with more involved planning questions?)

My recent (current) exam had a couple of easy max alt questions ... given BRW x, ISA dev y (or a given RSWT), track/east/west, max level is? Or fastest GS is? I also saw a couple of easy marks for fuel burn or fuel flow for a specified leg. There were 2 or 3 loading questions like … find MTOW or payload or FOB for given situation. Hopefully easy marks. Also a couple of "find the CP" to maybe 30nm tolerance.

Other than that, all the questions were 3/4/5 marks for variations on "complete a flight plan to find landing-weight, or fuel burn, or fuel required, time at, or PNR location". The actual plans were 3 or 4 stages (including climb/descent) or much longer but then you're given some intermediate weights. Seemed to be the old favourite routes and combinations of normal ops, DP, 2 engine, gear-down, yaw-damper, CP, and inflight v. planning – presumably with new questions or conditions.

The tolerances on answers seemed much more like the old exam. None of that silly precision from Nov/Dec. :D

Now what seemed to work. For many questions my calcs often got very close to one of the official guesses, so presumably most of my calculation methods were good:

• As per the CASA ATPL guide, I rounded all winds to nearest +-10deg/+-5k (even when it was easy to interpolate more accurately).
• As per the CASA guide, I rounded climb conditions to the nearest 5deg and 2 tonne, did not interpolate except to average +10+20 for +15 etc. For hold conditions, I rounded to nearest tonne or 1000' and interpolated accordingly.
• I used the “inflight” figures (fuel flows) for everything, not the “integrated range” tables, except for TAS.
• Several questions featured small climbs, I used the 50kg / 1000' step climb allowance.
• I adjusted fuel burns to nearest degree, using FB x (300+dev) / 300, or 500 for the hold. (NOT rounded to nearest 3 or 5 degrees giving 1% steps.)
• I used accurate tracks and combined multiple legs wherever the winds were similar.
• I calculated adjusted head/tail-winds to allow for tracking into the crosswind. On a Jepps whizzwheel, you do that calc around the edge and I think they call it the effective head/tail-wind.

I can't claim this is all correct (I got some wrong) but it worked for me – and under exam pressure, I make silly mistakes (head <-> tail wind, read computer wrongly, etc), which would account for the errors. Or maybe some exam question/answers are still wrong!

Re recent posts I think you are clearly NOT asked for the most accurate answer / best flight plan. You are tested for conformance to the “official” method. That sort-of makes sense for SOP environments, but it would be better if the official method were more fully and clearly specified.

Now on to Air Law … wish me luck.

I studied both the AFT and Rob Avery methods for this exam and I found the Rob Avery (draw the picture and write stuff everywhere) method much more efficient and effective during the exam. Efficient because I could answer the same 5 mark question in about 20-23 mins using AFT and 16-18 mins using the Avery method. Effective because my brain turning to mush during the 3 hour exam was somewhat delayed because the avery (draw the picture) method gave me a visual idea of what the question was asking and what I needed to do, where as I found the AFT grid method became very monotonous and concentration was easily lost as time went on.

In addition, I used different colored highlighters to highlight the 727 blue book so that whenever I was on the relevant page I knew exactly what I needed to do on that page and nothing was forgotten. Get a scrap piece of paper at the start and write down all the SGRs and other formulas you may need too because you dont want to be relying on memory to dig them out when your an hour and a half in pulling your hair out from the stress.

Also, its very important to do the exam backwards imo, aka do all the 5 markers first, then 4 markers, then 3 markers etc, because usually theres 3 five markers and if you get one wrong you can kiss 10% goodbye so you really need maximum concentration to get the 3 five markers right to have a real chance at passing.

Finally, a can of redbull may be cracked open after youve finished the first hour (and hopefully all the 5 mark questions) as a reward/to keep you awake!!:ok:

There is a reason why 100% isn't achievable by most mortals: CASA themselves advise that it's unlikely to be finished within the time allowed.

Anyone heard how AFT's pass rate is going, regarding recent changes?

Hey guys,

Anyone recently done AFPA with AFT notes? How close are the praccy exams to the real thing?

Just finished my first praccy exam with a result in the mid seventies (after 2 1/2 hours - I didn't check answers in the practice as I want to see what to expect if I have no extra time on the day) Im wondering what score on the AFT exams would keep me safe on the day.

Are the AFT exams easier/the same/harder than the CASA exam? I've got a week and a half until D-Day... Nerves are setting in!

Cheers for the help.

I found AFT practice exams to be a good representation of the real exam. Good luck, remember to have a decent meal before, 3 hours is a long time. FD

The AFT cyberexams are a good representation of the real thing. Finally passed just recently. I reckon you want to be getting around 85% to 100% for the AFT practice exams though.
The CASA Flight Planning exam is a farce. Accuracy to around 200kg for a jet that carries 20,000kg is bananas - especially under time pressure. They should be teaching the theory (thoroughly), not how fast you can punch numbers on a calculator without making a mistake.
But everyone already knows that...