PPL Confuser question
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
PPL Confuser question
PPL Confuser claims for the Navigation exam: 20 questions and time allowed 1 hour. Having sat the exam yesterday it turned out to be 25 questions and time allowed 90 minutes.
Does anyone know whether the Confuser got it right as regards the Aircraft General (Aeroplanes) exam, ie 50 questions and time allowed 2 hours? Seems rather a lot.
Does anyone know whether the Confuser got it right as regards the Aircraft General (Aeroplanes) exam, ie 50 questions and time allowed 2 hours? Seems rather a lot.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere In The South China Sea
I did my exams nearly 18 months ago and most were not what it says in the confuser, the one/ones which states 50 are correct I think but alot of the ones which states 20 questions turns out to be 25 so be prepared 
I think the R/T writen exam was something arbitrary like 27 or 28 questions.
good luck
D.
I think the R/T writen exam was something arbitrary like 27 or 28 questions.good luck
D.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Io
Confuser confusion
The PPL Confuser is a valuable aid to studying for your exams and I am sure it got me through some of the more difficult parts, but dont treat it as some kind of PPL training bible. It is not endorsed by the CAA and it certainly has mistakes in it. Nothing but your own hard work will ultimately get you through your exams. If you look at CAA PPL Info you may find some information on the examinations.
Good luck with the remaining ones. I got caught out on the technical paper; thought I knew it all! Had to resit that one after some serious Trevor Thom and confuser revision.
Good luck with the remaining ones. I got caught out on the technical paper; thought I knew it all! Had to resit that one after some serious Trevor Thom and confuser revision.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,400
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Yes- there are several easily spottable errors in the Confuser which I use as a test of the applicant's understanding. If he/she has the slightest understanding of the subject, he/she'll get the answers to those particular questions correct. But if the Confuser has just been learned parrot-fashion, the applicant will get the answers wrong.
The questions are.................
........not that difficult. Back to the text books!
The questions are.................
........not that difficult. Back to the text books!
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thanks everybody. So, 50 questions it is. Actually Technical will be the last but one (R/T being the last one) of the exams.
I just used the Confuser as “specimen exam papers” which was useful if only to spot the odd clanger. But on the whole I relied on Ground School and the Trevor Thom volumes as well as my brilliant FI. – Odd that I passed the Navigation exam when I have not yet used VOR or NDB or any other navaids – apart from the CRP-1 that is. Don’t get me wrong, I am not complaining.
Just returned from another flying lesson. Will I ever get the hang of overhead joins?
I just used the Confuser as “specimen exam papers” which was useful if only to spot the odd clanger. But on the whole I relied on Ground School and the Trevor Thom volumes as well as my brilliant FI. – Odd that I passed the Navigation exam when I have not yet used VOR or NDB or any other navaids – apart from the CRP-1 that is. Don’t get me wrong, I am not complaining.
Just returned from another flying lesson. Will I ever get the hang of overhead joins?
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: Biggleswade
Pianorak wrote: Will I ever get the hang of overhead joins?
I certainly hope so if he wants to come to Old Warden!
Joking apart, they're not that difficult - there's a good description in Safety Sense Leaflet: Airfield Sense, which is a free download off the CAA website.
A
I certainly hope so if he wants to come to Old Warden!
Joking apart, they're not that difficult - there's a good description in Safety Sense Leaflet: Airfield Sense, which is a free download off the CAA website.
A
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
Took me ages to get the hang of joining overhead - don't know why, it's easy on paper but at 2000ft my mind would go blank. Got it now, best thing to do is to keep doing them, even when the circuit is clear and you're lined up for that downwind join 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Close to EGBW
Agree on o/h joins. The following works for me; As part of my planning, I sketch the airfield rwy layout orientated with my planned in bound track up the page on a scrap of paper on kneepad. Once I have established the rwy and circuit direction, I scribble that on the layout with the circuit height. Then put the crosswind join from the deadside and then you can work out how to get to there from the o/h.
Good luck
Good luck
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
From: in de volle zon
The CAA Safety Sense leaflets contain loads of good info about many things, and can be found at:
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_aviation/document.asp
Follow the link for Safety Sense Leaflets, the one with the OHJ is called SSL6 - Aerodrome Sense.
There's also a sort of 3D poster depicting the OHJ under the link GA Safety Posters on the same page.
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_aviation/document.asp
Follow the link for Safety Sense Leaflets, the one with the OHJ is called SSL6 - Aerodrome Sense.
There's also a sort of 3D poster depicting the OHJ under the link GA Safety Posters on the same page.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
Once again many thanks everyone. Shall look at Safety and Aerodrome sense leaflets.
I was so sure in my mind I could do the overhead join without any problems – hence today’s shock.
My problem? I had it all worked out in my mind. Every LH and RH circuit meticulously mapped out on paper with red for the 1300 overhead and blue for the 800 deadside descend. Everything fixed in my mind. But it all went pear-shaped when to my great consternation those usually helpful Ops people had forgotten to draw those lines on the ground. Shall have to have another word with them . . .
I was so sure in my mind I could do the overhead join without any problems – hence today’s shock.
My problem? I had it all worked out in my mind. Every LH and RH circuit meticulously mapped out on paper with red for the 1300 overhead and blue for the 800 deadside descend. Everything fixed in my mind. But it all went pear-shaped when to my great consternation those usually helpful Ops people had forgotten to draw those lines on the ground. Shall have to have another word with them . . .
