My earlier tongue in cheek comment regarding the Restricted ATPL had more to do with the dumbing down of the pilot profession.

The FAA ATPL is the poster child of this movement. Buy the book with 1500 questions, do a 5 day course on how to pass the exam and next thing you’re at the pilot shop buying 4 stripe epaulettes.

Like deja vu, I did my subjects with Noel Lamont and was forced to learn a bunch of what was mainly utterly useless stuff. What I will say in defence of that “useless” coursework was that it instilled a sense of curiosity in me to constantly keep learning new stuff. And the realisation that one man’s useless information is another’s essential knowledge.

Being constantly curious is perhaps one of the most essential traits in a professional pilot. I’m not sure condoning a mindset of accepting bare minimum knowledge encourages curiosity. YMMV.

I get stuck on this flight planning which gave me some kind of insecure feeling making me question my abilities to do things.

Really, it has been ever thus. The underlying idea should be for the exercise to end up with the student acquiring some knowledge and, then, along the way, one passes the exam. Unfortunately, reality has always been a tad different.

If I may relate an anecdote, I first looked at the ATPL/SCPL exams in the late 60s/early 70s as an engineering undergrad. Had never heard of the various theory schools and started with the ANO 40 list of recommended texts. Got the texts, swotted up and fronted the exam. First up Flight Planning, as I recall - doesn't really matter as the story was much the same across the exam set. The exam appeared to bear absolutely zilch resemblance to the text book material and, I guess, I scored a mark for spelling my name correctly. I guess that I left that exam with a mindset of temporarily shattered confidence in much the same manner as you did.

Subsequently, discovered that one could source worked examples from previous exams and it became very evident, very quickly, that there were two essential elements to the pass. First, learn a bit about the subject and then learn a lot about the specifics of the exam questions. Next exam time around was pretty straightforward.

The only difference these days is that the previous exam questions are not released to the Industry post exam. I suspect that this, largely, is to reduce the overall in-house CASA workload. However, there are specimen exam questions about and one just has to practice the techniques to get to a stage where the speed and accuracy burden associated with the high pass mark and tight time frame can be accommodated.

Look around, though, and you will see folks who get through. Some will be slower than you, others quicker. It doesn't matter all that much - the material is not inherently difficult but the pass is due to the speed and accuracy requirements. Application and practice will get you there. The lesson to take away is that there is (almost certainly) nothing wrong either with your ability or application. View this exam stuff simply as a rite of passage. The hurdles are there to be clambered over and then you move on to whatever is the next activity. I make no observation as to whether the exams are reasonable, sensible, or whatever. They are just a hurdle to be cleared on the pathway to the licence. You can either engage in permanent navel-gazing and never progress, or pick yourself up, get back on the horse and eventually get past the goalposts. I well remember my favourite student when I was teaching at Noel's establishment down at Essendon. He had a few problems with the work and other distractions but you just could not fault him for getting back up onto the horse and getting back into the fray. Finally got through and had a fine airline career.

Why do I think this exam could be either rigged or not processed properly or made up not to be processed properly?

Methinks those sort of thoughts venture into conspiracist realms. You need to know the work, you need to know the examination spin on the work, and you MUST be up to the speed and accuracy requirements. The pass is not easy to get but it is achievable with effort.

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

Unfortunately, in the current paradigm, you don't know so you just have to grin and bear it. Remember the folks who are passing - it is not an impossible or Herculean task. The CASA site gives some guidance but, at the end of the day, providing you are up to speed with the work, just work to a fairly tight accuracy and the goal will be achieved. As a side note, the big killer is trivial errors along the way - you just cannot afford to throw marks away due to carelessness and the solution here is more practice on typical exam questions so that what can, will become automatically processed.

So, how come this drop in the pass rate after the questions have been changed?

That just goes back to my earlier observation of the two-pronged approach. Exam technique is a pretty critical component, whether you like it or not. Due to commercial pressure, some of the theory providers have a tendency to skimp on the theory a bit and emphasise the exam question. End result, for many students, is that a moderate change to the exam questions presents a problem in the absence of a sound theoretical grounding. Over a modest period, the providers' exam study will refine to align with the current exam style - it's just a little unfortunate if you are studying in that period. This highlights my only complaint - the exam questions should be released post exam so that everyone knows what's what. OK, that imposes an increased workload on the examiner regarding reworking questions for subsequent exams but, at the least, it provides transparency to the Industry.

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.

You are being too hard on yourself. Listen to what the real greybeards have to say on the topic. Things were pretty similar 60 and 70 years ago. If I recall correctly, Centaurus (a chap I have known forever, hold in very high regard, and has to be one of the finest pilot instructors I have ever had the privilege to watch wield his magic) made some observations earlier in this thread on the topic in question. Just take a short break to regroup, have a beer or coffee, according to your preference, and then get back on the horse. The goal IS achievable, but you have to keep at the speed and accuracy work and just hang in there.

I tried the 5 markers first strategy, but my first one was insanely difficult and I wasted far too much time on it

The VERY FIRST POINT which your theory provider should be emphasising is that there is NO POINT getting 100% for 20% of the questions and then not attempting the remainder. Absolutely the most important aspect of exam technique in these types of speed and accuracy critical tests is to pace minutes with marks. So, for instance, if an exam is worth 100 marks and the time allowed is 200 minutes, you allow 2 minutes a mark and NO more. If the question is worth, say, 5 marks, it gets 10 minutes and then you leave it. Some questions will be easier and what time you save along the way can be used to return and finish off what you have not yet completed. I have seen, time and time again, students flounder on this most basic but critical aspect of examination technique.

Does it matter what order you do the questions ? Not a bit. You pick how you prefer to approach things and one approach is as good as another. Just watch the clock throughout the examination and know when you must leave each question to avoid running out of time.

It's not a fair exam

I'm not sure what constitutes a fair or unfair exam. However, the exam is a passable exam and that is all that really matters.

Very true, you need absolutely no flight planning knowledge to drive a 737 / A320 up and down the east coast

That's not what ICAO is setting out to do with exam philosophy so I think we can safely bin this style of simplistic comment. For quite a few years I spent much of my time driving 737s up and down the east coast and elsewhere. Canned flight planning made things easier most of the time but, every now and again, generally at 0-dark-thirty somewhere over the Bight, one was thrown back onto one's own skills when Met threw a curved ball into the mix and woke the crew up from their slumbers.

I’m not sure condoning a mindset of accepting bare minimum knowledge encourages curiosity.

Indeed. Pass, friend.

the thing is, not all jobs are driving 737s up and down the east coast. You might find yourself rostered for Christmas/ Cocos island, working real life PNRs or with a U/S autopilot and nav system navigating a cyclone in the Gulf Of Carpentaria - both of which happened to me in normal airline service in Ansett.

​​​​​​​Or or you may never see an airline, and end up in a GA company flying freight in a Westwind with zero company support, flight planning every night from scratch.

I still stand by my point about the up and down the east coast thing, the negation of which were examples which were not on the MEL-SYD-BNE tramline. And yes, there are multitudes of challenging places across the globe to be flying.

That was the intention of my point to the folks complaining about the exam…that there is more to this job than driving up and down a tramline with the ability to carry round trip fuel. My follow up post, I had hoped, was meant to convey this.

I don't think that there was any intent to appear to be having a dig at you ...... We knew what you meant to convey. As I see it, if the exam is dumbed down to the abysmal limits, there is no point bothering to have one. Just hand out the licences and leave it to the operator to figure out what needs to be trained.

Thanks, I appreciate the time you took to reply...just casually logged in now.

For each type of hydroplaning, pilots may need to adjust their actions and techniques to mitigate the risks and maintain control of the aircraft:

1. Dynamic hydroplaning:
   
   • To minimize the risk of dynamic hydroplaning, pilots should ensure that their aircraft is equipped with effective anti-skid systems, which can help prevent the tires from losing traction.
   • Pilots should also be prepared to reduce their approach speed and increase their following distance during wet conditions to allow for increased stopping distance.
2. Reverted rubber hydroplaning:
   
   • Pilots should be aware of runway surface conditions, especially if rubber deposits are present, such as on heavily trafficked or older runways.
   • To reduce the risk of reverted rubber hydroplaning, pilots can apply gentle braking pressure to keep the tires from skidding and maintain better traction.
3. Viscous hydroplaning:
   
   • Pilots should be vigilant for standing water on the runway surface, especially during heavy rain or poor drainage conditions.
   • To mitigate the risk of viscous hydroplaning, pilots should consider using higher tire pressures, which can help reduce the likelihood of tire sinking into the water film.
4. Steam hydroplaning:
   
   • Pilots should be particularly cautious when landing or taking off from runways with standing water and high surface temperatures.
   • To minimize the risk of steam hydroplaning, pilots can consider reducing their approach or takeoff speeds, providing additional margin for error in case of loss of traction.
   • Pilots should also be prepared to apply firm, but smooth, braking and steering inputs to regain control if hydroplaning occurs.

Source: ChatGPT

:8:8:8:8:8:8

Pilots can take measures depending on the type of hydroplaning???? I have never had that conversation in the cockpit.

In the previous post it suggests you reduce or adjust V speeds. Sorry but I fly published V speeds. Or I can change type pressure. Really can I ask maintenance to do that???
Fly a plane with antilock brakes. Every transport category plane I have flown already had them. Unless they are talking about flying a DC3?

All of which demonstrates why AI won't be replacing humans anytime soon.