Met exam
 

I think I have found my first hurdle in getting my PPL.

I managed to scrape through the law exam with 75% after getting 98% in practice papers only to find that the questions were completely different!!!!!! :mad:

I cruised the Human performance exam with 100%. :cool:

But......now I am doing the met and I am am completely stumped. :(

I am using the Oxford Training CDs and after having been through the course thoroughly and looking at the Trevor Thom book and the PPL confuser (the older one with only 3 choices per question) I am struggling on the practice exams. I can only get about 55% (once or twice I have fluked 70%). I can't get to grips with the subject and I have to admit I find it incredibly dull. Now I am losing interest. I am redoing the course material but finding it hard to concentrate and it is having no affect on my knowledge of the subject.

Has anyone used www.airquiz.com? Is it possible to learn to know what type of questions are asked and concentrate study in that area or even learn how to answer specific questions!!!

Anyone got any other suggestions?

This was always going to be my problem exam!!! :(

How about actually trying to understand the subject instead of looking for the easy way out. If there is one subject you must study that you will actually use your knowledge in time and again as a pilot, it is met. It may even save your life someday.

I'm surprised that you don't find the CD-ROM useful. I studied for the ATPL exams at Oxford, and the met instruction was top notch (although the now departed instructor was a plonker). If the CD-ROM is based on the notes used for the ATPL syllabus (I've never actually seen it, so can't comment directly) your problem lies elsewhere. I don't know anybody from my time there who failed the met exam.

I am not looking for the easy way out. I am genuinely having trouble understanding the subject.

Don't get me wrong the CD-ROM is very good. It is just that for me the subject is very complicated. A lot of it I know but as much if not more I don't, but it is not just a case of knowing it is a case of understanding.

I found Met quite difficult (still do, in fact). What I did was to just practice every day; go to the met office website, download forms 214 and 215 and look at the TAFs and METARs. Compare them to what you see out of the window, and think about how the TAF relates to what form 215 is showing you. Think about planning flights - would you go flying? You can also download some of Irv Lee's weatherwatch articles - they're very good. When's the book coming out Irv...?

Apart from the odd question it's a fairly practical exam - but Thom is full of waffle about the Foehn effect, adiabatic lapse rates and katabatic winds that just confuses things. Stick to the practical side of things and you should be fine :ok:

Evo

Thanks very much that is very helpful. :ok:

Are you saying that the in depth theory on things like the Foehn effect should just be treated as background? I am finding that the CD-ROM includes quite a number of questions on those subjects and I get lost.

I am finding the more practical side e.g met charts, TAFs, METARs etc a lot easier.

Thanks for the tip. I will see how I get on.

PBD

I can sympathise. When doing the groundschool at Coventry for a Met exam I approached one of the instructors and said,

'I'm happy with every other subject, but I've got a serious problem with Met.'
"What's your problem?' He replied.
"I don't understand any of it." I answered.
"Hot things go up. Cold things go down. Now you understand all of it." He said with a smile.

His point was genuine though. He explained that it is too easy to get buried in detail and lose the big picture in Met.

Good luck!

TG

PBD

I sat my met exam a couple of months ago. Like you, I found it hard going.

What worked for me was to use the confuser as a pointer to the subjects areas which I really had to know. (As already mentioned, there is a lot of waffle in the Thom book). I then made sure that I had a good understanding of the subject areas questioned in the confuser.

So I didnt learn the answers from the confuser parrot fashion but used it as a way of highlighting what was important and then made sure I had a good understanding of those topics.

Passed with 90%, so it seemed to work for me.

Good luck! :ok:

Have you had any Met. ground school? It's well worth doing for any subject you don't understand well - you can ask what you want explaining rather than hoping that what the book/CD is telling you will eventually make sense.

Thanks for the responses.

Looking at what areas are covered by the confuser and concentrating on those is a good idea. I have until now just tried to understand all apsects fo the CD-ROM and then tried the practice questions.

Ground school? Tell me more. Is it possible to get that sort of tuition?

Most people just seem to refer to self study. Although I am fairly sure that for the other remaining subjects I am not going to have any problems I think I will need more than self study for Met. Ground school may be the answer.

PBD

I have taken ground school for my last 2 exams, although I didn't for Met because I enjoyed it, I have found groundschool to be really useful.

It just cuts out the stuff you don't need and helps you focus on the bits that you do.

Once the penny drops and you have passed your exam you can keep going back to the Met book and more will click into place.

It is (as another forumite said) a very important subject.:ok:

PM me and I might be able to help with recommendations.

Girl On Top

Whether one uses texts, groundschool, examination technique aids, etc., to arrive at a fit state for the Meteorological Examination, the principal point, in my opinion, is to compare and contrast what one is learning about this specific subject with a broader view of the issues.

In other words, as has been intimated earlier in the thread, ally the specific meteorological learning with an elementary view of the principles involved; for example, O-level physics.

That way, one's mental assimilation of the topics involved in the Meteorological Examination syllabus will be related to general principles with which one is familiar.

There is a fairly basic problem with PPL-level met, in that the best quality forecasts the pilot is likely to get are the TAFs, and they don't need much interpretation.

Those interpretation skills that one is taught require access to a lot more sophisticated met data than is available via officially approved channels.

Discuss :O

True - but if we want to hijack the thread onto what is actually useful....

Then as stated: TAFs, F214 & F215 for same day forecast, and for longer range the Met Office charts - available on avbrief and here:

http://www.greatweather.co.uk/
No need to register (3/4 down page under Forecast Charts then click on T+xx ... from G Mueller (not MetO?))

These are also worth studying over time so that you can see how reliable (or not) they are and convert what they are saying into reality. They are my source for working out ahead of the game whether a longer trip may or may not be on.
(and before anyone says it I obviously use the TAFs and Fs on the day)
Its also interesting to see how much a forecast chart for 5 days away can change.

Are there any other worthwhile sources?

The whole point of learning weather is to understand why winds go the way they go, what clouds to expect and the implications of flying from to high pressure to low on altimetry.

For this understanding low pressure and high pressure systems together with the Coriolis effect and warm and cold fronts gets you 90% of it.

Other things tend to relate to variations that occur especially in mountainous country and you need to know why that can be dangerous.

If you divide things up into these sort of compartments so things have a context it might help.

It got me 95% three years ago!

Good Luck!

Thanks for all the replies.

That has given me a few pointers and things to try.

I have been up until 1am two nights in a row studying this stuff (about 4 to 5 hours an evening) and here is a good example of why I am struggling. Can anyone help?

A practice question I came across was:

The dewpoint temperature of air mass is 16 degrees Celsius. At what height would you expect the cloud base to form if the surface temperature is 20.5 degrees Celsius?
A 1500 ft
B 2500 ft
C 6000 ft
D 10500 ft

Appartently the answer is A, but I answered B and can't understand why I am wrong. My reasoning is:

The surface temperature is 20.5 degrees and the dew point is 16 degrees which is 4.5 degrees lower than the surface temperature. Assuming that the ISA temprature lapse rate of 1.98 degrees per 1000 feet applies then the cloud will develop at 4.5/1.98 x 1000 = 2273. The closest answer therefore being B.

Can someone explain why the correct answer is A?

The correct answer is A or B, or anything else in that region because these cloudbase calculations are never anywhere near accurate.

What one needs to find out is what the Trevor Thom book says, because that is what the exam paper writer assumed you studied from.

I also struggled with Met exam and this question has just reminded me why.

Working it out on my CX2 computer gives an answer of 1841ft which makes A the closest answer. (Cheating I know)

Reading Thom again, it would seem that you need to work it out on the DALR of 3 degrees per 1000ft. This would agree with the computer +/- a few feet.

I'm probably wrong, but as I said I struggled with the Met exam.
:\

For every 1°C difference in ground temperature and dew point equates to 400ft cloud base. Thus for 4.5°C difference the cloud base will (theoretically) be 1800ft. The closest answer if therefore A.

The above uses a 2.5°C/1000ft lapse rate (from J Pratt's book)

The question seems to be using 3°C/1000ft lapse rate to give the exact answer of 1500ft.

This will be in the books, you just need to find it!

Thanks for all the help - this is really helping being able to discuss things.

You are both right. I have done some searching in the Thom book and on the intenet. The Thom book is not as clear as the information found on the internet. The answer is:

As it rises, unsaturated air cools at the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR). When it reaches the condensation level, however, the water vapor it carries begins to condense. This releases latent heat of condensation, which warms the air and reduces the rate at which its temperature decreases with height. As it rises further, the air cools at the SALR.

I remember that one confusing me too!

If I remember correctly, the reason is as follows:

While ISA assumes a 2degree C drop in temp per 1000, it's an assumed average.

Accroding to Thom (if I remember correctly) dry air actualy drops by 3 degrees per 1000ft , and saturated (wet) air by 1.5 degrees. The air under the cloud base is assumed to be dry, so you take your temp drop as 3 degrees per 1000 ft.

However the due point also falls by 0.5 degrees C per 1000ft. Hence your target temp is not 16 degrees....it's falling by 1/2 degree as you go up.

Therefore for every 1000ft you go up, you get 2.5C closer to the due point. ie. your temp drops by 3 degrees, but your due point moves away by 0.5 degrees.

So in your question...you have a difference of 4.5 degrees....divide this by 2.5=1.8(thousand)=1,800 feet. Answer A is the closest.

By the way, I agree with IO540, that in practice this is virtually useless, but it's what you need for the exam!


Hope that helps.

dp