Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) A forum for those on the steep path to that coveted professional licence. Whether studying for the written exams, training for the flight tests or building experience here's where you can hang out.

New EASA ATPL questions

Old 6th Jan 2017, 00:04
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by paco View Post
EASA are trying to get rid of the database learners, and not before time.

You can answer 30% of the questions just with common sense and PPL knowledge anyway. Despite the fact that a proportion of the questions are poor*, you should still be able to pass with proper training and knowledge.

*2000 per year are being reviewed.
I agree that many many questions are very poorly worded.
However, this is NOT specific to EASA ATPL, I've studied on two continents and many institutions and there seems to always be questions that are intrinsically overcomplicated.

The one thing I particularly dislike is having to choose between 4 very close definitions of the same things (except if the differences made a sensible impact)

My method is the following : spend half the time on reading the books, then half the time on aviation exam.
Do you reckon that intelligently answering could lead to proper success at the exams even with an entirely new set of questions ?
Intelligently answering :
- if answering is evident (and chosen answer turns out to be correct) : just get on the next question
- if answering is not obvious: thinking about it, why not make a few calculations (not to do on the test day, just to understand things better) and answering
- if after all this chosen answer turns out wrong : reading in depth the explanation or even the book again if forgotten

The one advantage I see the QB is the possibility to have a global overview of my progress: what's the % of questions I correctly answered, how many more % to go, for each subject ?
Plus, if the answers to the QB' questions are not to be learnt by heart, but discovered, and answered once (for most of them), then it's like discovering questions on the day of a test.
KayPam is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2017, 12:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: go west
Posts: 0
a couple of years ago, Transport Canada mistakenly issued performance questions A with performance graphs B, and everyone still passed. Go figure.
perhaps they realized their mistake and awarded everyone points for the questions where graphs were needed? Happened with IAA with my PPL exam - Air Law I think it was, they made a small booboo with the pictures not matching questions, admitted the problem quickly and rectified the situation accordingly..

oopsies and booboos happen everywhere, no doubt.. it's just how you deal with them and how likely you are to admit the problem in the first place is what makes all the difference
Martin_123 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2017, 16:40
  #23 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,749
No, this was genuine cheating....
paco is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2017, 16:51
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: go west
Posts: 0
ah ok, I re-read it now and I see what you meant.. my case was different, like you genuinely could not answer a question and it was a paper based exam.. My self and some others just wrote comments on the paper leaving the answer section blank
Martin_123 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 12:23
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Orlando
Posts: 11
Hello all,

I'm currently wrapping up studying for 5 exams which I will take in 2 weeks. I took and passed all the exams 8 years ago so I'm wondering how much different the exams will be this time around. I've been using aviation exam so far and have been able to work out the answers (not memorize).

Since the learning objectives haven't changed I'm assuming the questions are variations of the same stuff. That being said however I'm interested to know if banks like aviation exam cover questions for all of the learning objectives. Otherwise I would need to go through the books to cover everything.
Team Bravo is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 12:50
  #26 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,749
No, they are not - there are plenty of new ones and Ops has almost completely changed. For that you need EASA Doc 965/2012.

Phil
paco is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 14:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
How can one learn for an ops test which would have completely changed ?
Did they change the rules (answer to old questions) or did they just add new questions ?

Is there a book that would be good enough ?
I don't think it realistic to read the hundreds of pages of EASA official documents..

I will be taking my OPS exam in about one month or two : could there be a huge difference between my aviationexam database and the real thing ?

Thanks !
KayPam is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 22:53
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north or south
Age: 46
Posts: 516
KayPam

Advice : Read EASA Doc 965/2012. and use aviation exam questions , ops exam is an easy fail exam
ersa is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2017, 23:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
I plan on answering all aviation exam questions at least once

The concept is not to learn the answer to each question but to learn the material behind each question, whenever I did not fully remember this material from the books (or whenever it was absent from them, which can unfortunately happen)
KayPam is online now  
Old 16th Jan 2017, 17:38
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: earth
Posts: 11
Salut Kaypam.

Simply do the BGS QB for OPS.
It is uptodate. All my fellow and I got +95%.
Good luck
Fouga_GVA is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2017, 20:31
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
Unfortunately my school provides aviationexam, nothing else.
Is it up to date or not ? Anyone ?

I could also buy the cheapest (one week) BGS subscription, just to confirm if I see some newer questions or not.
KayPam is online now  
Old 16th Jan 2017, 22:08
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 268
The meaning is to LEARN stuff and not about memorizing QB.

QB is a great tool to check where you need to study more. And to answer few of those tricky questions. However, if you DO study, you will pass the exam, no matter how many new questions they make.

My advice - don´t waste 6 months memorizing "a" or "b". You may pass the exam now. But what will you answer on tech interview, when asked to explain how ILS works?
cefey is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2017, 23:05
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
Don't get me wrong, I will never learn by heart the answer to a question. At the minimum I will try to learn the table of data behind it. (Don't forget we're talking about air law and ops here..)

EXCEPT when it's the only solution to do so !


There are a few questions that can be answered with common sense, yes.
But my ops book is 5 years old. Imagine any numerical value (be it the minimum number of passengers to require 1 fire extinguisher, the visibility circling minima for cat D aircraft or whatnot) has changed, in a newer set of EASA questions : how I am supposed to cover for that ?

Plus, I know full well there is a significant amount of questions that won't be easily answered using only the books*. Probably not enough to fail me, but largely enough to get me under the very important 90% threshold, that will allow me to apply at flybe (among other airlines, I bet)

(*Example : the right to damages is lost if action is not brought within which duration ? no trace of that in my book, but it was in BGS online QB)

I also don't know what to do when the answer given by the QB is wrong.
Like yesterday, avexam told me sideslip angle (not drift angle) was computed by INS/IRS..

Will we have open questions ? These are more complicated to answer because you can't guestimate if you don't know, but they're a relief in cases like above.
KayPam is online now  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 11:03
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 60
Posts: 1,472
The liability question is feedback. The issue that I repeatedly highlight in these discussions is that the syllabus does not properly reflect the question bank, or vice versa, and therefore some element of feedback is essential. In this case the LO is

010 01 02 05 Explain the Conventions and Protocols designed to cover liability towards persons and goods in accordance with the Warsaw System based on the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Warsaw, 2 October 1929.

...and the 2 year limitation is in Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention. But without the feedback who would know that EASA require you to remember this? Are the candidates expected to remember all 41 Articles? A proper LO would be "State within which time period a claim under the Warsaw Convention must be brought?".

PS The airbus IRS does compute sideslip, for example google A310 Flight Instruments, FCOM pages 10, 16 &17, side-slip index (and beta target). With due respect to your theory provider they should know this, and that the 2 year time limit has been asked.
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 13:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: The MEL page
Posts: 80
Alex,

What is your honest opinion when it comes to LO's like the one you've just given as an example?

Do you feel it is of any actual value to a Pilot in his day to day role?

Are you as frustrated in teaching these things as students are in having to rote learn passages from law textbooks?
tech log is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 13:46
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 60
Posts: 1,472
No, I don't think it is of value to a line pilot, how could it be? We get frustrated not so much by having to teach this, as by having to deal with questions like this that cannot be anticipated from the learning objectives. It is tremendously unfair on the candidates. Paco will tell you that another review of the LOs is underway. The intentions are good and, if done properly, it is a move forwards but it will not address the root problem, which is lack of adequate quality control when questions are added to the CQB.
Alex Whittingham is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 13:59
  #37 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,749
Hear hear! My concern is that, having done the LOs, that the questions will be ignored, even though they are adding new ones. I will be bring this up at the next meeting. We can all work around even the current LOs, but nothing can prepare you for the surprise irrelevant question that has the loosest of connections to them.

Phil
paco is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2017, 18:58
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by Alex Whittingham View Post
PS The airbus IRS does compute sideslip, for example google A310 Flight Instruments, FCOM pages 10, 16 &17, side-slip index (and beta target). With due respect to your theory provider they should know this, and that the 2 year time limit has been asked.
Oh yes, I've had an epiphany while re-reading this message.
The ball will indicate "sideslip" by actually giving you a measure of the lateral acceleration.
The IRS can compute lateral acceleration as well and try to deduce sideslip.

However it is not an optimum measure of sideslip.
Say you are rolling on the runway at 100kt, with a 5kt lateral wind.
The IRS won't notice a thing, if correctly compensated for, but there will be a 3° sideslip (or so)
In flight, I do reckon that there is a lateral force equation. Cy can be deduced from LAT_acceleration=QSCy
The, Beta can be deduced from Cy=Cyβ*β + Cyr*rb/2v +Cyp pb/2v+Cydn*dn
That is not exactly a measure, that is a complex computation :lol:
It would be an estimation based on the aircraft engineering model.

I've noted a few other questions which are typical of why I will do the entirety of my question base :
https://gyazo.com/414b7c0abbded745620a05280c09079a
If you are still at the intercepting heading once you're on the lock, since you can't instantly change your heading to the LOC heading, you will overshoot and be in for a new LOC capture. One should not re-try to intercept it at constant heading..
https://gyazo.com/663edad82a76222433332b5f0b32f91f
This question deserves a plain WTF?
I would definitely write the keyword "inversion" on my exam paper if I could, or even write the answer in plain words, if possible. I'm not sure the computers will allow that.
KayPam is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2017, 02:47
  #39 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,749
Most basic autopilots I've used do overshoot, especially on VOR coupling, hence my preference for using the heading bug and doing it myself. It's only the more modern ones that have an element of anticipation.

What's wrong with the second question? Simply remember Extra Chicken Tikka Masala (EAS, CAS, TAS, Mach No). Whichever one is constant in the climb, the one on the right is increasing, and on the left decreasing. The reverse for the descent.

Phil
paco is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2017, 10:40
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by paco View Post
Most basic autopilots I've used do overshoot, especially on VOR coupling, hence my preference for using the heading bug and doing it myself. It's only the more modern ones that have an element of anticipation.

What's wrong with the second question? Simply remember Extra Chicken Tikka Masala (EAS, CAS, TAS, Mach No). Whichever one is constant in the climb, the one on the right is increasing, and on the left decreasing. The reverse for the descent.

Phil
Oh ok, I did not know older autopilots could not anticipate

For the second one there is something clearly wrong.
In the general case the answer is right, yes.
However (!!) you could be climbing through an inversion ! This would revert the variation of Mach (TAS is assumed constant, not CAS here)
Is there a way to tell the autority (examiner or automated correction algorithm) my short explanation based on the keyword "temperature inversion" ?
So how can I know if EASA wants me to be super rigorous or to talk about the general case ?
This is typically why I will do the entire QB before going to the exam.
KayPam is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.