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.

EASA ATPL Changing Question style

Old 3rd Jul 2017, 08:01
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Not your business
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very true, couldn't say it any better. Good luck to everyone for these new questions, you never know, it might actually be more decent (somehow)
Scagrams is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 09:35
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: -
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think they can stop your career before it even begins. One of my instructor had 7 fails, he is now flying for his national carrier. And I reckon he was a very good instructor. Another one failed meteorology three times, yet he got called to several interviews and now he is an A320 first officer (didn't have to pay for his TR). A friend of mine failed M&B, then retook it and got 100%, yet it's still a fail. He is now flying the 737.

I reckon that these exams, as much of a pain in the neck they can be, do not determine whether you will have a career as a pilot or not.
RedBullGaveMeWings is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 10:02
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that is true based on what method of training you are under.

For those on an airline cadet programme they need to pass the exams within a set time period and often stipulating a specific grade to be achieved. Numerous retakes, using up all your CAA sessions and having to go back from scratch will see you be dropped.

For those going modular, I would imagine it is a lot less of a "be all and end all" exercise.
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 13:04
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder how many of you "in my day" folk would actually pass the current ATPL exams with a high score?
I have. UK CAA BCPL/CPL/ATPL, (when you had to do three sets of professional exams as experience grew - and with negative marking) JAA and now EASA ATPL subjects due to prolonged periods operating outside of the EU. Have to say, I found the whole process a lot easier and although there has been a significant increase in the volume of questions concerning topics such as GNSS, EFIS, RNAV etc, with a background in using these technologies over 25 years, it's not a problem.

Most significant difference for me was the use of electronic tests and mock exams; never had this tool for any of the previous exams I'd taken and it streamlined (turned on it's head in fact) the learning process in my view. I can see now why the fundamental knowledge of many entry-level F/O's is so weak - you simply don't need to know much to pass the exams with the benefit of pretty accurate question banks (although it really helps in most cases in terms of picking out the right option).

Despite the anecdotal evidence that appears to support the opposite, airline training departments really do identify a correlation between successful theoretical knowledge attempts in much the same way as first series passes in CPL and IR Skill Tests act as an indicator of future success or potential training risk. I'd say that based on experience of the current system, admitting that someone had failed multiple exams in a series would be nothing to be proud of and I can well see why a change is necessary after all, we're not talking about driving a Toyota Prius with a couple of punters in the back but managing and for short periods of time, actually flying a heavy, complex piece of high performance machinery at speeds not far shy of the supersonic envelope with tens to potentially hundreds of passengers. It's not rocket science but airline flying is still (just) an occupation that demands some skill, attention and professionalism.

Last edited by Reverserbucket; 3rd Jul 2017 at 17:00.
Reverserbucket is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 14:18
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello,

The most difficult thing for me is the time & number of sessions.
Why can't they let you do one exam at a time? Even if they reduce the failing opportunities to 1.

As a modular-distance student with a 40h/week job, the worst it's to have to sit with 4-5 subjects. And the fact that when you do it, you have 18 months to complete the rest.

I think the whole system is designed for people who has the money (without working) to do it the integrated way.
superflanker is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 17:33
  #26 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 70
Posts: 3,996
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Personally, I think the terms are too generous. I think the number of attempts should be reduced to two, at least.
paco is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 17:55
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can you explain why? I don't excpect them to be easy, but i don't understand the Max time and sitting (i mean the 6) limits.
superflanker is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 19:54
  #28 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 70
Posts: 3,996
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simply because other parts of the transport industry use 2 - train drivers, for example. We should be at least as strict. The 6 sittings should also be 4. The reason for not doing one at a time is retention. You can't just learn and dump each subject because it all pops up again in other subjects.

I guess there is also an element of motivation (I'm sure you are BTW) - other people with kids and jobs do it in 6 months.
paco is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 20:10
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't know maybe you are right, perhaps i am scared about the exams because EVERYONE is telling that they are so difficult... .
6 months with job? Really?
superflanker is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 21:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Precisely. Nearly fell asleep today whilst my instructor was talking about some DC magneto carry on to do with engine ignition. I asked him which aircraft we will fly uses these systems, he said I'll be lucky to come across it in a museum.

Officer Kite is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 22:57
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by superflanker View Post
Hello,

The most difficult thing for me is the time & number of sessions.
Why can't they let you do one exam at a time? Even if they reduce the failing opportunities to 1.

As a modular-distance student with a 40h/week job, the worst it's to have to sit with 4-5 subjects. And the fact that when you do it, you have 18 months to complete the rest.

I think the whole system is designed for people who has the money (without working) to do it the integrated way.
Well I don't agree..
I have a 37h/week job and still managed to pass all 14 subjects within 6 months, 14 first passes, average above 90% (95 IIRC)

By the way, I wonder how a potential recruiter would view that :
Would he believe since I was so fast it means I didn't have enough time to learn to an above-average level ?
Or on the contrary would he believe I'm a super smart learner ?
KayPam is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 06:53
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Congratulations. Can you tell us your study method and how many hours a week did you study please?

I have been studying for three weeks and i have only finished HP and i am half way of air law and with an average on Aviation Exam tests of only 80%...
superflanker is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 10:27
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nearly fell asleep today whilst my instructor was talking about some DC magneto carry on to do with engine ignition
A DC generator? Asked about DC generators at an interview once for a T/P job; Mach Tuck, Loran C, Omega and Transonic Shock (altimetry) were also covered. Never know when you might need that 'useless' knowledge. Interesting that those who seek to change the syllabus content have little or no experience of aviation and likely little practical understanding of the architecture that more modern technology is based on. Take Automatic Dependant Surveillance, ACARS, ECAM, EFIS, RNP/PBN and others for example - the syllabus content covers fairly simple and first generation type architecture however it serves the purpose of giving the user an understanding of the principals by which the systems operate. You are unlikely to need to know the orbital plane of a GPS or EGNOS satellite either but this is most definitely not the stuff of ancient history.

I was told that the CEO of an airline introduced himself to a group of first day First Officers a few years ago and asked how many of them were interested in aeroplanes? A few raised their hands likely imagining he was asking if they were plane spotters, to which he responded that having gone through the process of ground school, practical training and testing, they should all be interested and that if they wanted to come back for the second day of induction training, they should re-think their motivations for flying. I thought that said quite a lot about the way the industry has changed in recent years.
Reverserbucket is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 10:39
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reverserbucket View Post
I thought that said quite a lot about the way the industry has changed in recent years.
I agree many people does this because they want a "cool" job.
superflanker is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 11:00
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: NL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reverserbucket, you were definitely told the principles of internal combustion engine when getting your driver license. Now, honestly ask yourself - does it really help you with your Audi when it suddenly lights up the CHK ENG?

In the CEO example, what he detected was that some of his potential pilots produced a quick but incorrect decision, while others preferred to wait and learn the situation better. Ironically, he blamed them. This indeed tells a lot about the industry these days...
neboskreb is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 11:08
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: egll
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by superflanker View Post
Congratulations. Can you tell us your study method and how many hours a week did you study please?

I have been studying for three weeks and i have only finished HP and i am half way of air law and with an average on Aviation Exam tests of only 80%...
This is my 3rd week studying integrated and nearing the end of AGK. If you were to test me now on everything we did so far on aviation exam i'd probably get lower than 80 and i'm being told this is normal, so i wouldn't worry
momo95 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 12:21
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
neboskreb
I knew almost nothing about internal combustion engines when I passed my driving test and received no formal training other than practical driving tuition but if I see an engine warning, I tend to pull over on the side of the road and call for a tow. I'm not paid to drive a car however but for flying, I am and when an annunciator illuminates, a troubleshooting process via the QRH and checklist procedure is most definitely aided by an understanding of the systems. As I said, much of the syllabus content is not specifically relevant but there is a lot of background information which sometimes becomes more valuable as you gain experience.
I think you've misunderstood my point concerning the motivation of the new entry intake; quite a few people spend a fortune on training with no real understanding of what the job, environment or lifestyle entails and in particular, no interest. Perhaps it's a generational thing but I meet people like this every day as well as those who have learnt the answers to pass the exams rather than attempted to understand the theory - in modern aviation, preparation is everything and the day you learn on the job may well be your last. Tot ziens!
Reverserbucket is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 15:23
  #38 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 70
Posts: 3,996
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You may not need to know how the clutch works to drive your car, but if you do know, it sure helps to save you money as well as being a better driver.

I have one student who is having difficulty precisely because his technology is way newer than that asked about in the questions. However, a lot has been added for the new LOs.
paco is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 15:33
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think we can all agree that no one is complaining that we have to learn.

It just seems ridiculous that the very questions they ask to check the LOs are often outside of the prescribed LOs. For example the LO states we must know the function principle of a thermal plug. What do EASA do? Ask the student how many thermal plugs may a wheel have ... "one" or "one or more" ... seriously?


By all means revise the stuff, but it's hypocritical to expect a higher standard on the student's behalf whilst the standard of questions are very often poor to say the least.
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2017, 15:51
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"one" or "one or more" ...
Which is more correct?

Alternatively, you could try the U.S.A for an examining framework that is often described as far more practical and relevant...until you take the FAA oral exam as part of a practical flight test and can't recall the minimum number of static wicks required for the aircraft to be used or the angle of dihedral of the horizontal stabiliser and then you realise that this sort of stuff is not only confined to EASA.
Reverserbucket is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.