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...

The reality is that if they made the exam based on a 767 or 777 then the thing would become straight forward as the manuals and systems are better engineered and simpler.

I'd just like to chirp in here in Nathans defence.

I sat his 6 week course mid this year. The rumour that he simply teaches the exam, is incorrect. I came out of his course with a very good understanding of the concepts behind flight planning and could still recall pretty well all of it now months later.

And as much as I ranted and raved at the time that the 727 is outdated, as Green Goblin said, the methods are the same, regardless of the aircraft type you use.

I did enjoy flight planning, and managed to walk out of the exam first go, with 94%.

What DOES need some changing, is the quality of the graphs/tables etc. that you use for Performance! They are near on impossible to be accurate with.

morno

They do - Starts at page 28: http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/download/v2_2aeroplane.pdf

I went to a theory provider with a good reputation (LT), did the work and had a good look at all the supporting material CASA provide. I made sure I had covered all items in the syllabus. I got through first time.

These exams aren't meant to be easy (nor should they be), but by no means are they impossible. By doing a bit of extra research and speaking to people in the know you can really put yourself ahead of the curve.

AMEN!!

To be honest their is nothing wrong with Higgins course, but learning everything in Flight Planning in less than two weeks is a huge effort on both sides.

His course is tailored to people who are working and that would like to get through quickly and efficiently. I enjoyed the course last year in MCY but by the end of the 2nd week I was so burnt out I barely had the energy left going into the exam.

I honestly think people would have a better success rate if they gave themself an extra week or two to revise everything in the course before attempting the exam. When I sat flight planning last year out of 47 students there were 16 that passed.

I'm certain no one is suggesting the exam is unnecessarily difficult. The thread began because of an apparent down turn in the pass rate.

To suggest a dud course at a particular training establishment would be a statistical anomaly. A fairly random pool of 40 odd 6 months ago should have a similar pass rate to more recent attempts (plus or minus blah blah...). I'm sure if a school had a consistent pass rate of 1:15-ish (as suggested in previous posts), it would not survive long.

If there has been a sudden change it would suggest something other than a dud course of students. And would need looking into. Especially if the exam had been recently "re-jigged".

I spent about 6 weeks doing flight planning, and I self studied with AFTs notes.

The trick to the exam is understanding the concept and what you are trying to achieve.

It helps to be practical about it too.

The biggest tip I can give folk is if you get a result that is between two answers, always pick the lowest fuel burn figure as an answer.

The more sectors you break your plan into, the more fuel burns you can calculate and the lower the burn in each sector as the aircraft gets lighter.

If you understand this, you will pass flight planning first go with at least an 80% pass mark.

Sounds like a few too many nights at the Scu-Bar!

But seriously, what Nathan doesn't know about planning is not worth knowing. I did his planning course earlier this year he covered absolutely everything in the exam syllabus, with a few very helpful "rules of thumb".

His course is second to none.

Id be more suspicious on Casa actually organising their exam answers in order with the questions!

P.S Last I heard, old god bothering Gav was working for CLARC, not writing exams...

I suggest to anyone that feels hard done by in the exam to contact and make a complaint to CLARC (CASA licensing) via email and phone. From first hand experience, I can confirm the stats ( 3 people passing out of 45 people). There were some super smart people in the class, including Julia Gillards pilot, as well as many other FO's etc. Most people found the exam pretty easy and straight forward but most scored under 50%, and a fair few under 40%. The exam had many errors, including asking for 'total fuel burnt from A to B' and giving answers in kg/ph. It was a joke. If they can't get it together to write a exam, what chance do they have of looking after our safety. Rant over.
Farmer Dan

To dispel a myth - Nathan does not teach the exam - it is abundantly clear in his course that he understands his obligation to teach the theory. Given that, nobody can deny that 18/19 flightplanning questions in 3 hours with a required accuracy of around 1% is not easy - Nathan teaches valid and proven methods to arrive at that accuracy. He is an excellent teacher and he is committed to teaching the subject, not just how to pass the exam.

Ok, I did the exam yesterday also - unlike most of the other ATPL subjects I've done in the last few years, when I hit the submit button I genuinely thought that I was possibly in line for 100%. I knew the questions and I even had 10 mins to spare to re-check the 1 and 2 markers for stupid errors. I got 50%. Something is going on here.

I agree with Farmer Dan - we need to apply some pressure here. I'm not sure what the rules are with requesting a re-mark - given the circumstances I'm beside myself that my workings have been shredded and there's no evidence of what I did.

Well, I'd probably change it to introduce a literacy component to ensure pilots could read. I said the ATPLs, not just specifically flight planning.

You done many geometric solutions to a PNR or ETP lately?
Done a lot of work with polar stenographic charts this year?
And the INS gyro stuff. I'm sure you're so busy dealing with those every day you don't even have time to answer on those questions.

There are bit and pieces that are certainly useful but to answer your question, I 'propose' they modernize the exams and aim to test more practical theoretical areas that may have some practical benefit to a shiny new ATPL candidate.

Regarding the 727, yes the techniques are more or less the same but at least make it on an aircraft that actually operates in this country.

Would be nice academia is very different to the real world. The deeper you go into any subject area, the more theoretical and less practical it gets.

Funny you should say that. Now first of all I know zilch about modern day ATPL exams. But I had similar problems 45 years ago while trying to pass the SCPL (later called ATPL) subjects while in the RAAF. Couldn't get an airline job so joined Dept of Civil Aviation (DCA)Head Office in Melbourne where my office was next to the Examiner of Airmen (Theory).

He was a bitter and twisted cranky old grey haired public servant who used to be a navigator on Wellington bombers dropping bombs on the Jerries. Probably what gave him the grey hair! As a former navigator he was just what DCA wanted to set up the flight planning and navigation exams. These were full of (would you believe) Antarctic grid navigation exams and gyro steering questions at high latitudes.

I dropped in to say hello and said his exams were completely irrelevent to the average airline pilot flying a DC3 between Tassie and the mainland. He spat the dummy and said his exams were based on Qantas International requirements where in those days their pilots had to have a Navigation Licence. And if pilots couldn't pass his exams then that was their problem. I pointed out that even the navigators on my squadron who had helped me were unable to get his answers right so what hope could mere pilots have?

I'm buggered if I could see the relevance of his argument but at least I got it out of my system. You had to know all about Meridional Parts and Log tables, too. Seems things haven't changed much in Fifty years...

I think the issue here is not about the relevance of the exam but the fact it appears casa have changed something recently that has resulted in an abnormal fail rate. If this is the case they need to explain what has changed so providers of the training can adapt the training to suit.

Self study is not for everyone. If you fork out the coin and the time to go into full time ground school then you should expect a reasonable chance of passing, as has previously been experienced by AFT students.

Does anyone know whether an AFT representative has approached CASA at all or if they intend to?

Does anyone actually know if the increased failure rate is just AFT or is it across all people sitting the exams???

If the increase applies to everyone it would remove the aspersions re AFT, and suggest either some dud exams or the changes to the exam criteria have not gotten through to the candidates.

I think you're stretching the limits of credibility associating casa with 'academia'.

You can go into detail on a subject area and still keep it relevant. I can provide countless examples of the ATPL syllabus covering crap that isn't even remotely relevant. To anyone.

The current count of people (that we know of, surely more) who have sat the flight planning exam in the last couple of weeks is around 75. Of those, a grand total of 4 have passed, and only just. These were not all AFT students so it has nothign to do with them and what they are teaching.

Stats from the casa website is a pass rate of 59.3% (lowest of all the ATPL) with 32.7% of all those getting 80+ and 17.5% getting less that 55. Out off all the people who have recently sat, most have got below 50.

Something is seriously wrong. CASA have apparently gone back through a whole lot of workings and said we are all wrong.

What do you do now ? Especially if casa wont budge :ugh:

I sat NH's course earlier this year.

Whilst he used practice questions extensively, he still taught the course thoroughly and I have absolutely no doubts about recommending his course to any pilot.

After having completed my ATPL I can say there was not exam where ASL did not have some sort of problem with the computers, the server, CASA's server etc etc. Literally not one exam. I sat some in Queensland and some in Bankstown. Both locations experienced similar problems.

I contacted the relevant head of CASA licencing and examinations. He didnt really seem to care much, and made blind excuses for everything. He did say that changes were due as this year progressed however.

Im no pointing the finger as I simply dont know. My best guess however, is that they made an ass of the changes and didnt test it. Id be surprised if they ever admitted it. Typical CASA disorganisation, lack of professionalism and blatant disregard for the pilots they serve.

Im sure nothing will be done to change this of course....

Moral of the story - AFT was a great course in my opinion. Have a look where most issues lie in aviation...

Definitely with 5.3% pass rate there is something seriously wrong with the exam or curriculum.

Ok - I'll add to the stats.

I sat the exam today. Had previously self studied - been unclear about reserves required for various situations and just failed (69% :* ). Was pissed as I'm normally pretty good at this type of stuff.

So I bought Rob Avery's notes and practice exams. I'm confident that I now understand the subject well, and can do accurate plans in reasonable time. Today I got 38% - really pissed now.

I have seen both the old exam and the new one. The new one is just LOTS of detailed plans (full or partial) with VERY close answers. Mostly covering fuel burn - I saw nothing on PNR, and only one or two simple CPs. One or two other small questions (max alt, fuel burn...). So it's LOTS and LOTS of detailed plans.

I don't believe the exam answers are correct. Of course I will have made mistakes, but there were plenty of high score questions where I am very confident I calculated the question sensibly, but obviously didn't get the points.

:ugh:

So - no point throwing more good money after bad, if the 6% pass rate is true. What Can we do?

:ugh:

Is this CASA, in panic mode over the Senate enquiries and the Pelair stuff, making sure Dominic What'sHisName doesn't pass FPL?

Or protecting there ass because someone up north was passing around answers?

Either way it's really fckg ridiculous.