CPL Groundschool practice - is it legal?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty has an excellent point that I would have made had he not. It supports Alex's call (that I think the other ground instructors would echo) that the exams themselves need to be examined.
Another point to consider is that, although it is a greater expense to the school, every school I know of offers more than the legal minimum of training. I can assure you that this is not done frivilously. That time is needed to cover the areas that need to be looked at. Some of the classroom material, ironically considering what Batty said, is about exam technique and how to cope with the way the questions are written.
Another point to consider is that, although it is a greater expense to the school, every school I know of offers more than the legal minimum of training. I can assure you that this is not done frivilously. That time is needed to cover the areas that need to be looked at. Some of the classroom material, ironically considering what Batty said, is about exam technique and how to cope with the way the questions are written.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batty wrote:
The brushup course was sold to me as "preparation for the exam, lots of feedback and practice exams" with no mention of formalised instruction. I have not got to that stage yet so can't confirm it, but coming at the end of the course there can't be much new material to work on, and it might be bit late for remedial treatment.
I was discussing this with my father; his comment was "Is this brush up thing a fancy name for Revision?"
I agree that there should be a requirement for some form of training programme to be have been undertaken before taking the exams. All children have to have some form of schooling, but not necessarily in a state school; there are other forms, even 'non-traditional' schooling such as home schooling.
I agree that any organisation offering that training should be subject to some form of quality oversight, and registration/approval, but that this oversight should limited to content and student management. All school are subject to inspection by the authorities.
I do think it is the business of regulatory authorities to involve themselves in the minutia of where, when, and how the teaching is delivered. With the variety of teaching and learning styles, and the expanding technology available, such interference cannot be in the interests of the student.
If I have any supporters out there I can see that we would constitute a very small minority, so this will be my last word on the subject. I shall go with the flow, get through the hoops, and get out into the sunshine again
Keg
Thats the whole point. By ensuring that people have to do some formalised training even the people who just beg for feedback are forced to go through theory in a structured method in a classroom.
I was discussing this with my father; his comment was "Is this brush up thing a fancy name for Revision?"
I agree that there should be a requirement for some form of training programme to be have been undertaken before taking the exams. All children have to have some form of schooling, but not necessarily in a state school; there are other forms, even 'non-traditional' schooling such as home schooling.
I agree that any organisation offering that training should be subject to some form of quality oversight, and registration/approval, but that this oversight should limited to content and student management. All school are subject to inspection by the authorities.
I do think it is the business of regulatory authorities to involve themselves in the minutia of where, when, and how the teaching is delivered. With the variety of teaching and learning styles, and the expanding technology available, such interference cannot be in the interests of the student.
If I have any supporters out there I can see that we would constitute a very small minority, so this will be my last word on the subject. I shall go with the flow, get through the hoops, and get out into the sunshine again
Keg
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sunny Solihull
Age: 67
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amusing that those complaining about the system, are yet to actually do it. Perhaps time and experience might enlighten them, but I doubt it.
The brush-ups/revision I have run certainly did contain formal instruction in addition to practice exams, feedback & exam tips/techniques. It's the little tips & tricks that aren't written in any book that makes the difference, also the way an instructor puts the point across often makes the penny drop.
Even if the brush-up wasn't mandatory I can assure you this wouldn't bother me (or other schools I suspect) as the VAST majority of students can't wait to be given pearls of wisdom from experienced instructors. QED old CAA system.
I should be the first the say the system isn't perfect but learn to live with it and bend with the wind. When JAA is finally replaced I suspect the new system might contain even more requlations, so get studying NOW.
The brush-ups/revision I have run certainly did contain formal instruction in addition to practice exams, feedback & exam tips/techniques. It's the little tips & tricks that aren't written in any book that makes the difference, also the way an instructor puts the point across often makes the penny drop.
Even if the brush-up wasn't mandatory I can assure you this wouldn't bother me (or other schools I suspect) as the VAST majority of students can't wait to be given pearls of wisdom from experienced instructors. QED old CAA system.
I should be the first the say the system isn't perfect but learn to live with it and bend with the wind. When JAA is finally replaced I suspect the new system might contain even more requlations, so get studying NOW.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved in the provision of ATPL training for a number of years, both by full time and distance learning courses, I am a firm believer in the value of consolidation training. Even with the best books in the world many students simply do not understand much of the material.
Over the years I have lost count of the number of times students have said things like "Why is it not explained so clearly in the notes" or " I have learned more in a week with you than I did in six months reading books". I do not claim that this is a reflection of my teaching skills. The fact is that it is much easier and more efficient to get complex subjects across in face to face discussions.
Having said all of that, I think we are stretching the truth a bit too far if we suggest that the JAA requirement (for at least 10% classroom training in any course) is the product of any truly logical thought process. We need only to look back to the original concept to see that this is not the case.
The original idea was that students would be required to take all 14 examinations in one sitting. It was only after protests from the schools (who were horrified at the probable effect of this on their pass rates), that the JAA relented. But even then they only relaxed the regulation sufficiently to permit the taking of all 14 exams in two sittings. This two-sitting rule is the main reason why most schools provide courses based on two modules.
After many protests and much debate the rules were again relaxed to permit students to take the exams in whatever groupings they wished. In response to this change a number of schools have switched to a three module system, which permits students to concentrate their efforts on a smaller number of subjects at any one time.
In my experience most consolidation courses are a mixture of formal training in the form of a review of the more complex aspects of the material, plus a good many practice examinations based on feedback from previous JAR exams. Most importantly, to be truly effective the process must include detailed debriefs of these practice examinations. It is this debriefing process which (done properly) enables the student to understand why an answer is correct, rather than simply learning which answers are correct.
The vast majority of students currently studying for their exams would be unable to pass most of them without the benefit of consolidation training. Even with the benefit of consolidation training a small number of students repeatedly fail some subjects. In most cases these students eventually pass only after carrying out further consolidation training, often with a school that was not their original training provider. This does not mean that the original training provider was inefficient, but simply that a change of emphasis or teaching style often makes the difference between success and failure.
Now let's get back to the original question of whether or not it is reasonable to make consolidation training compulsory. Personally I think that it is not reasonable. More importantly, it is not an effective way of ensuring that students actually understand the material they are studying.
As stated by Alex, the real problem lies in the exams. The current system uses a relatively small number of questions, most of which test knowledge of facts. The JAA should construct a proper question bank, using a very large number (tens of thousands) of questions. If these questions tested comprehension, it would be impossible for students to get through simply by learning the answers to a limited number of questions.
One school currently provides a consolidation course for a subject using approximately 185 feedback questions. The students taking this course often find that the vast majority of the questions in their subsequent JAR exam come from this list of 185. This observation is not intended as a criticism of the school in question. They have created a consolidation course that is very effective in getting students through this particular exam. But this situation clearly indicates that too few questions are currently in regular use for that subject.
The problem in setting up an improved question bank is the fact that the creation of such a system would involve a great deal of effort on the part of the JAA. But once the improved exams were set in place, students could be freed to carry out their studies in whatever manner they wished. But at the end of the day I suspect that there would still be a lot of business to be done in the provision of consolidation training.
Over the years I have lost count of the number of times students have said things like "Why is it not explained so clearly in the notes" or " I have learned more in a week with you than I did in six months reading books". I do not claim that this is a reflection of my teaching skills. The fact is that it is much easier and more efficient to get complex subjects across in face to face discussions.
Having said all of that, I think we are stretching the truth a bit too far if we suggest that the JAA requirement (for at least 10% classroom training in any course) is the product of any truly logical thought process. We need only to look back to the original concept to see that this is not the case.
The original idea was that students would be required to take all 14 examinations in one sitting. It was only after protests from the schools (who were horrified at the probable effect of this on their pass rates), that the JAA relented. But even then they only relaxed the regulation sufficiently to permit the taking of all 14 exams in two sittings. This two-sitting rule is the main reason why most schools provide courses based on two modules.
After many protests and much debate the rules were again relaxed to permit students to take the exams in whatever groupings they wished. In response to this change a number of schools have switched to a three module system, which permits students to concentrate their efforts on a smaller number of subjects at any one time.
In my experience most consolidation courses are a mixture of formal training in the form of a review of the more complex aspects of the material, plus a good many practice examinations based on feedback from previous JAR exams. Most importantly, to be truly effective the process must include detailed debriefs of these practice examinations. It is this debriefing process which (done properly) enables the student to understand why an answer is correct, rather than simply learning which answers are correct.
The vast majority of students currently studying for their exams would be unable to pass most of them without the benefit of consolidation training. Even with the benefit of consolidation training a small number of students repeatedly fail some subjects. In most cases these students eventually pass only after carrying out further consolidation training, often with a school that was not their original training provider. This does not mean that the original training provider was inefficient, but simply that a change of emphasis or teaching style often makes the difference between success and failure.
Now let's get back to the original question of whether or not it is reasonable to make consolidation training compulsory. Personally I think that it is not reasonable. More importantly, it is not an effective way of ensuring that students actually understand the material they are studying.
As stated by Alex, the real problem lies in the exams. The current system uses a relatively small number of questions, most of which test knowledge of facts. The JAA should construct a proper question bank, using a very large number (tens of thousands) of questions. If these questions tested comprehension, it would be impossible for students to get through simply by learning the answers to a limited number of questions.
One school currently provides a consolidation course for a subject using approximately 185 feedback questions. The students taking this course often find that the vast majority of the questions in their subsequent JAR exam come from this list of 185. This observation is not intended as a criticism of the school in question. They have created a consolidation course that is very effective in getting students through this particular exam. But this situation clearly indicates that too few questions are currently in regular use for that subject.
The problem in setting up an improved question bank is the fact that the creation of such a system would involve a great deal of effort on the part of the JAA. But once the improved exams were set in place, students could be freed to carry out their studies in whatever manner they wished. But at the end of the day I suspect that there would still be a lot of business to be done in the provision of consolidation training.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keg you questioned the JAA's remit to determine the methodology of pre-examination instruction. While there may be much wrong with both the logic and the structure of the current ground exam regime, you should bear in mind that this is a professional not an academic qualification. Unlike a degree, which may have absolutely no relevence to an individual's career, the ATPL ground exams are an integral part of the process of becoming a licenced airline pilot, therefore the method of obtaining that qualification is quite rightly under the jurisdiction of the regulating authority.
The same is generally true of professional qualifications in other fields.
The same is generally true of professional qualifications in other fields.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dispensation given to existing ATPL holders is very relevant to this discussion. It undermines the argument that compulsory consolidation training is intended to ensure that students actually understand the material.
If the JAA have such a low opinion of the FAA system, why do they allow existing FAA ATPL holders (who presumably just learned the answers to the questions) to bypass this element of quality control? It is of course a fudge, just like the bridging course route devised for ex-military transport pilots.
This post is not intended to be an argument for making all applicants do the full JAA aproved course (although the theoretical knowledge of some of the FAA and ex-military students that I have taught has been pretty sketchy to say the least). My purpose is simply to highlight one of the more curious aspects of our system.
If the JAA have such a low opinion of the FAA system, why do they allow existing FAA ATPL holders (who presumably just learned the answers to the questions) to bypass this element of quality control? It is of course a fudge, just like the bridging course route devised for ex-military transport pilots.
This post is not intended to be an argument for making all applicants do the full JAA aproved course (although the theoretical knowledge of some of the FAA and ex-military students that I have taught has been pretty sketchy to say the least). My purpose is simply to highlight one of the more curious aspects of our system.
