How good is the confuser
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that was easy... 
To expand on my rather brief post, the Confuser gives you a less thorough test than the questions in the Thom books, but gives you a genuine feel for the actual exam. Pass a Confuser exam and you can go into the Real Thing confident that there will be no surprises. You could almost certainly use nothing else and pass, although it wouldn't be smart to actually do that...
The usual caveat is that there are a few errors, but it isn't bad. If you've done the bookwork first then most of these stand out.
To expand on my rather brief post, the Confuser gives you a less thorough test than the questions in the Thom books, but gives you a genuine feel for the actual exam. Pass a Confuser exam and you can go into the Real Thing confident that there will be no surprises. You could almost certainly use nothing else and pass, although it wouldn't be smart to actually do that...
The usual caveat is that there are a few errors, but it isn't bad. If you've done the bookwork first then most of these stand out.
Last edited by Evo7; 1st Apr 2002 at 19:30.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got my PPL last November - did all the papers during the year and used the Confuser as my main study and revision aid. Passed all papers first time with good scores so it must be OK as I am no Einstein.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'...as a revision aid' being the importand words.
Done 2 exams since buying the confuser - 2 x 100% - the problem is I think it's making me lazy in my study. It would be so easy to simply learn the answers. I obviously try VERY hard not to do this but it is really hard not to. I have found myself sat in exams thinking 'ah, know the answer to this one' before actually reading all the question or thinkng about it. Is this really a good thing?
The first one I did after getting the book - Human Performance - took me about 5 minutes. (Yes, I know, it's not rocket science anyway) and the guy who was marking the exam commented somthing like 'ah, so you bought the confuser then?'. The next one I did, I sat in there for an extra 10 minutes (after checking the paper twice) to avoid any comment.
I have never got 100% on anything before - makes me think - have the CAA/schools noticed improvements in test scores since the book has been around? Are they totally happy with the possibility that people COULD just be learning the answers?
Sorry to put a downer on things. I agree that it is an excellent book when used properly, worth every penny, and wish I'd bought it months ago. Buy it and enjoy, but remember it's your neck on the line if you don't learn stuff properly and just 'learn to pass the exam'.
Done 2 exams since buying the confuser - 2 x 100% - the problem is I think it's making me lazy in my study. It would be so easy to simply learn the answers. I obviously try VERY hard not to do this but it is really hard not to. I have found myself sat in exams thinking 'ah, know the answer to this one' before actually reading all the question or thinkng about it. Is this really a good thing?
The first one I did after getting the book - Human Performance - took me about 5 minutes. (Yes, I know, it's not rocket science anyway) and the guy who was marking the exam commented somthing like 'ah, so you bought the confuser then?'. The next one I did, I sat in there for an extra 10 minutes (after checking the paper twice) to avoid any comment.
I have never got 100% on anything before - makes me think - have the CAA/schools noticed improvements in test scores since the book has been around? Are they totally happy with the possibility that people COULD just be learning the answers?
Sorry to put a downer on things. I agree that it is an excellent book when used properly, worth every penny, and wish I'd bought it months ago. Buy it and enjoy, but remember it's your neck on the line if you don't learn stuff properly and just 'learn to pass the exam'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How good is the confuser
Yes, I know what you are getting at
knobbygb but I did my Met studying, and using the confuser, but the exam seemed to be much harder that the confuser questions.
Am currently doing Technical and getting good success with confuser questions but still doubting whether am ready for Caa exam
knobbygb but I did my Met studying, and using the confuser, but the exam seemed to be much harder that the confuser questions.
Am currently doing Technical and getting good success with confuser questions but still doubting whether am ready for Caa exam
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're talking about the same confuser (the one with the photo of two rather 'spaced out' looking guys in a 727 just about to have a head-on with another a/c) - then it contains the exact same questions as the exam. Not past-paper questions in the normal sense but the actual questions you will get in the exam. If the exam seems more difficult it must be the stress/pressure of the situation? Or is your book out of date?
For what it's worth I am also studying the tech stuff as we speak (or was 5 minutes ago - glad of a break). I agree - there's a lot of it and I don't quite think I'm ready yet. Just answered all 149 and got 82%. Need to read up more on the first ones on the atmosphere - wasn't expecting those. I also have trouble getting my head round the Met. stuff - glad it's not just me.
Wasn't trying to imply you weren't studing properly, by the way - I did acknowledge that you said 'for revision'. Just making a point for anyone else who is in the same boat. Good luck.
For what it's worth I am also studying the tech stuff as we speak (or was 5 minutes ago - glad of a break). I agree - there's a lot of it and I don't quite think I'm ready yet. Just answered all 149 and got 82%. Need to read up more on the first ones on the atmosphere - wasn't expecting those. I also have trouble getting my head round the Met. stuff - glad it's not just me.
Wasn't trying to imply you weren't studing properly, by the way - I did acknowledge that you said 'for revision'. Just making a point for anyone else who is in the same boat. Good luck.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current Confuser certainly doesn't contain "the exact same questions as the exam". I did Met recently (beginning of March) and the paper I had was noticably harder than the Confuser one - had I only studied using the Confuser I would probably have failed it. However, Flight Performance & Planning was similar to the Confuser and Human Factors was almost identical.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How good is the confuser
Evo7, this is my reason for this post.
I too did my Met early March! Having heard such good things about the confuser then finding the Met difficult after using the confuser.(as a revision aid!!)
I have three left Tech/Plann/Performance.
From what others have said on this post then theses exams are perhaps the ones that one gets the most benefit from on the confuser?
I too did my Met early March! Having heard such good things about the confuser then finding the Met difficult after using the confuser.(as a revision aid!!)
I have three left Tech/Plann/Performance.
From what others have said on this post then theses exams are perhaps the ones that one gets the most benefit from on the confuser?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got 100% in Human Factors (old-style CAA exam) WITHOUT the Confuser. So did several other people. It's a stupid, way too easy, badly designed exam. Or the old one was anyway, and I doubt if it's changed much. Still, they didn't have it before around 1990, so at least it's an acknowledgement by the CAA that human factors is an important part of aviation.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with all the other posts - except I can't believe it took so long before someone pointed out that there are errors in the Confuser. Learn from Thom, then check your knowledge with the Confuser. If you're not convinced by the answers given in the Confuser, check back to Thom for the correct answer. But there are few enough errors for it not to be a problem.
The latest Confuser doesn't contain questions for the R/T written test. However, if you can find someone who did the CAA sylabus, they may have an older copy of the Confuser lying around, and this does have R/T questions. Very helpful.
FFF
----------
The latest Confuser doesn't contain questions for the R/T written test. However, if you can find someone who did the CAA sylabus, they may have an older copy of the Confuser lying around, and this does have R/T questions. Very helpful.
FFF
----------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currymonster - the Confuser is very useful for Flight Planning & Performance and Human Factors, so you'll have no problems with those. They are both easy exams anyway. Not done the Technical exam yet. Not looking forward to it either...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The confuser is good for checking your knowledge, not for learning.
The met exam (6 months ago) was ~40% different to the questions in the Confuser. Also, especially in Met, the Confuser explains why it is the desired answer, but does not explain why the others answers are not valid.
The other subjects were pretty well covered by the Confuser.
There are one or two errors in the Confuser, but overall it works well to self-test your knowledge.
I was particularly worried about one of the answers in the Cconfuser, which I thought was wrong (relating to flaps), and that question came up on the exam paper - however, the phrasing was slightly different to taht used in the Confuser, and I was able to give the right reply from knowledge!
Use the books to learn, Confuser to test, and cross check against the (few) visible errors.
Good Luck
The met exam (6 months ago) was ~40% different to the questions in the Confuser. Also, especially in Met, the Confuser explains why it is the desired answer, but does not explain why the others answers are not valid.
The other subjects were pretty well covered by the Confuser.
There are one or two errors in the Confuser, but overall it works well to self-test your knowledge.
I was particularly worried about one of the answers in the Cconfuser, which I thought was wrong (relating to flaps), and that question came up on the exam paper - however, the phrasing was slightly different to taht used in the Confuser, and I was able to give the right reply from knowledge!
Use the books to learn, Confuser to test, and cross check against the (few) visible errors.
Good Luck
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GroundBound
Wasn't a Flight Planning & Performance question was it? I had that recently - chickened out in the exam and picked the Confuser answer, rather than the one I knew was right. Dumb...
Wasn't a Flight Planning & Performance question was it? I had that recently - chickened out in the exam and picked the Confuser answer, rather than the one I knew was right. Dumb...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo7
Can't remember what section, now. It concerned use of flaps which steepen the approach. In the Confuser it talks about a flatter pitch. The answer was "flatter" in the Confuser. In the excam, the question was phrased as "angle", and the answer was "steepen".
The problem is the phrasing of the question in the Confuser. The author has a very non-English sounding name, and it may be that small translation errors cause the problem.
Some of the Confuser questions appeared to be word-for-word compatible with the exams, some were very similar, and sometimes the values (e.g. a FL) were changed.
I studied the Thoms books, and repeatedly tested myself (random selection) on the Confuser. Whenever I had a "disputed" result, I cross checked with the books, the question phraseology in the Confuser, and with any other sources who I could find.
I got through the exams, and the Confuser did help a lot, primarily to allow me to test my knowledge - the Thoms books don't do that very well.
Can't remember what section, now. It concerned use of flaps which steepen the approach. In the Confuser it talks about a flatter pitch. The answer was "flatter" in the Confuser. In the excam, the question was phrased as "angle", and the answer was "steepen".
The problem is the phrasing of the question in the Confuser. The author has a very non-English sounding name, and it may be that small translation errors cause the problem.
Some of the Confuser questions appeared to be word-for-word compatible with the exams, some were very similar, and sometimes the values (e.g. a FL) were changed.
I studied the Thoms books, and repeatedly tested myself (random selection) on the Confuser. Whenever I had a "disputed" result, I cross checked with the books, the question phraseology in the Confuser, and with any other sources who I could find.
I got through the exams, and the Confuser did help a lot, primarily to allow me to test my knowledge - the Thoms books don't do that very well.