Hello and Advice for a New PPL Trainee......

[mad_bear]

Originally Posted by DRJAD

mad_bear: I take the point, and in certain areas of endeavour would agree with what I think is the thrust of your argument.
I suspect, though, (and I further suspect that this may prove to be an unpopular point of view), that in this particular field of endeavour - flying - what the regulator should be looking for in assessing suitability for the grant of a licence is not simply knowledge measured either by physical prowess or by theoretical subject testing, but mainly aptitude.

I don't think that the idea that there is a thing called `aptitude', and that it should be of a particular standard, would necessarily be unpopular.

The problem, surely, lies in determining what are suitable indicators of aptitutude.

If you ask a person to learn some subject matter, then subject him to an examination of a type, style, and pace with which he is completely unfamiliar, one of the things you are testing -- perhaps the main thing you are testing -- is that person's ability to handle a stressful and unusual situation in a short time. The ability to do this might be a necessary part of a pilot's aptitude (I wouldn't know, myself -- I'm not enough of a pilot). But, even if it is, you might as well set a prospective pilot an unseen examination on (say) topiary -- knowledge of the subject matter will contribute less to the score than will the handling of the situation.

If you feel that there are certain qualities of a pilot's aptitude that need to be tested -- such as the information processing you mention -- surely the proper thing to do is to devise specific tests for that particular quality? The theoretical knowledge tests are designed to measure retention of theoretical knowledge and, while there may be more important skills for a pilot to demonstrate (for all I know), surely using the theory tests as a medium for their assessment is not really scientific?

But all this is moot, in a way, I think -- because I'm sure that the CAA folks know perfectly well that there are all sorts of study aids available for the PPL exams, and that the performance expected in the exams (i.e., the pass mark) reflects that. So if you don't use all the study aids that are available to you, all you're doing is putting yourself under an unnecessary disadvantage with respect to other candidates, no?

[Whirlybird]

I suspect, though, (and I further suspect that this may prove to be an unpopular point of view), that in this particular field of endeavour - flying - what the regulator should be looking for in assessing suitability for the grant of a licence is not simply knowledge measured either by physical prowess or by theoretical subject testing, but mainly aptitude.

Forget all the long words. Someone gets a PPL when they can prove to an examiner that they can fly well enough and have enough basic knowledge not to kill themselves or someone else. And that's as it should be.

[DRJAD]

What long words? I merely write as I speak.

Mad_Bear's witticism about topiary is relevant on both sides of the discussion, I think. I believe, personally, that there should be some abstract test of the thinking process, both rapidity of data assimilation and synthesis. Discussions of topiary, and many other topics, might well be used to test a candidates ability rapidly to think and to marshall a cogent response.

[high-hopes]

Originally Posted by mad_bear

Common sense won't tell you what two black balls hanging from a mast means, and you couldn't reason it out even if you knew what one black ball hanging from a mast means, because the meanings are unrelated.

Passed the Air Law exam 3 months ago.
What do those hanging balls mean again ? lol

[Whirlybird]

I believe, personally, that there should be some abstract test of the thinking process, both rapidity of data assimilation and synthesis.

Oh come on now! Let's get this in perspective. We're merely making sure someone can safely pilot a small, fairly forgiving light aircraft around the skies in daylight, with someone on the end of the radio to help him/her if need be. It's not rocket science. It doesn't require a Mensa level IQ.

Back in the early days of flying, people jumped in a twitchy taildragger and taught themselves to fly. In the second world war, they were sent off to cross the sea and get shot at with barely double digit training hours. Even after that, if I remember rightly from what I've read, getting a PPL involved far fewer exams and flying hours than it does now.

We're gradually adding more and more to what we demand from the new PPL. Why? What is to be gained from more tests, or different tests? What are we going to achieve?

[Hampshire Hog]

Coming back to the point about aerial photography:

This appears to be a grey area because:

1)strict interpretation of the law means that you would need a CPL or ATPL to make a flight for the purpose of aerial photography, which classifies as 'Aerial Work' and does not fall within the exemptions (glider towing and dropping parachutists@);BUT

2) if you make the flight for pleasure purposes, happen to take a few photographs and then sell them - ex post facto (after the fact), it all becomes much harder to prove a breach of the PPL licence. The difficulty is you could probably only get away with it once or twice. Once a pattern of behaviour is established, flight - involving low flight and circling over areas photographed, followed by sale of photographs taken, the CAA would probably ask a court to consider that flights are, in reality, knowingly and deliberately being carried out for the purposes of Aerial Work. "Take him down!"

It's not worth risking your licence. Secondly, unless you're going to take a good photographer to take the pics, you will find aerial photography more difficult than you might think. I have found taking a pic with a digi camera and flying the plane responsibly at the same time is really tricky, and that's without trying to focus on any specific point on the ground.

HH

[DRJAD]

Originally Posted by Whirlybird

We're gradually adding more and more to what we demand from the new PPL. Why? What is to be gained from more tests, or different tests? What are we going to achieve?

Surely, by 'raising the bar' for entry, as in other fields of endeavour, we would be setting an environment where greater skill at flying became a new norm, and so onwards.

Why settle for either the 'lowest common denominator' or for static standards?

In fact, our occasional flight reviews by instructor, rather than being a simple inspection of our ability, or otherwise, not obviously to endanger ourselves, could become assessments that, in the intervening time from our last review, we had honed and improved our skills to a new level acceptably in advance of that former review. Were this to include a reassessment of theoretical knowledge and power of cogent thought under pressure, it would be welcome.