Something to answer for AFT??
 

Heard some second hand news (the best kind of news), that of 40 odd AFT students sitting Flight planning recently, only one passed?
How is this an acceptable pass rate for NH? Now we all know that it's a tricky one to pass and rumours are that the questions have changed slightly, but is AFT losing its touch?
Now that the questions have changed it seems AFT are behind the 8 ball with "teaching the exam questions"
A lot of coin to hand out for no result.

Gee I wonder if the new examiner (who used to be an ATPL theory provider but could never cut into NH's dominance of the market) has decided it is God's Work to cut a swathe through NH's averages? :suspect:

One might say whoever is writing the exams might have something to answer for being that the 1000's of students that NH has taught over the years are the ones ACTUALLY booting around in shiny metal. 727?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I reckon the something must be up with the exam, its only just come online after being re-jigged.

There were some very bright and switched on people on the course who were acing the practice exams and should have got high 90s+ but instead resulted in the sub 50s, which is where most people ended up.

Everybody put in huge effort and most did quite well in the practice exams. The real exam was not difficult, very similar if not slightly easier than the practice ones.

A lot of people have been very successful under N.H, nothing has changed there but for these results (spectacular fails rather than "just missing out") something has changed somewhere.

If it's casa, I wonder if and what they would do about it...

Not lashing out, that exam was done and dusted a few years back..
It's a bit harsh to say that the class are a bunch of duds.
Sounds like Corkey might by correct.
Interesting to see how it pans out over the next few months when CASA see that no one is passing.

Word is 3 passes out of 45 sittings yesterday.

Is this a result of 'teaching the exam' rather than 'teaching the subject'?

I disagree that he simply 'teaches you the exam'. I walked out of flight planning with a thorough knowledge of the syllabus. That he teaches exam technique in addition doesn't negate the fact that you still cover the syllabus in its entirety. At least, that's how it was back in the early 2000s.

If the questions are similar what has changed?

I can only imagine it's either the level of accuracy required or they've changed what assumptions you can make for your rules of thumb that AFT uses quite a lot.

Heard this also. No real word from friends on the course just yet about the actual exam, a lot of them seem to be shocked after doing so well in practice exams and coming up well short on the day.

I is supposed to be a test of KNOWLEDGE not of the exam questions.We need more of these sort of failure rates to lift the standards.Then,just maybe,we will have less pilots running out of fuel due poor flight planning!

42 exam fails- asl will be dining with the queen at this rate!

But in all seriousness everyone knows the ambiguity of Casa exams and that weeks of study can amount to a fail because of a stupidly worded question so what's new?

How dare you say that, it is not the pilot's fault, it is CASA and ATSB and the Operators fault.

Tell me this clown isn't serious.

The current ATPLs have about as much to do with modern transport aviation as cross stitch. Its the syllabus that needs to be changed (a 727, really?), not the way the exams are taught. As I stated before, the syllabus was covered in its entirety when I undertook the course.

How would you teach it better genius?

I don't know what everyone's problem with the 727 is.

You would be doing the same techniques if it were a 737 or an A320. The only difference would be the high bypass engines would have lower fuel burns, the principles are still identical.

In fact because of this, the variations in the fuel burn would be far less with different configs (gear down, de-pressurised etc). As a direct result of this, the accuracy required for the exam would be far less, and thus easier to pass.

I think the 727 is the perfect ship for such an exam. I really enjoyed the flight planning syllabus and used many of the techniques in my day to day flying when I was a turboprop skipper.

I also use SGRs for the Airbus enroute for contingency planning to verify the FMS generated data.

So what do you propose?

Opening the flight plan envelope or learning how to print the flight plan?

How to enjoy a perfect flat white, whilst bumping up flight plan fuel figures?

101 excuses to carry extra fuel?

How to handle a Captain who likes minimum fuel?

ETOPS?

I'd love to hear it :ok:

Sad news that so many students have to resit the exam as ASL and CASA look forward to making even more money out of already poor pilots...

The current flight planning exam and some small parts of the other exams are out of touch with reality.

I'd love to hear about any pilots that have calculated a 1 engine inop DP at the ETP when flying between Perth and Melbourne... Even if i did feel the need to slog out the calculations :8 would a 50-100kg error in fuel burn calculation really be that critical...

Its an out dated exam made by old crusty men refusing to change it, just cause they had to sit it back in the day! Get with the times!

The flight plan has the excess fuel at diversion airports and fuel required from ETP included on the flight plan. You still double check those figures with basic arithmetic to check the integrity of the dispatchers assumptions. They do get it wrong from time to time. Or miss things.

What the flight plan doesn't have included are PNRs. I still do these especially on international flights over areas not friendly to the west.

Was this exam an online one through ASLTasman?

So it's not just me then?
 

I'd be curious to see the difference is pass rates before and after the exam (nation wide) was suspended back in September due to 'technical difficulties' with that exam...