EASA ATPL Changing Question style
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So PoF, mass and balance, performance, apart from the EASA-regulations aspects (like what is Va, Vb, etc..) were done.
All "scientific subjects" like gen nav were greatly facilitated.
My method was to read the books once, then do a third to a half of the corresponding questions. 80 pages per day.
Go like this until the book was over. Then 200 questions per day
Depending on subjects, this took me 1-4 hours per day. I'd say I studied an amount of hours just above the regulated minimum of 650 hours.
Air law is what I call a "by heart" subject, so only a good memory will help you there.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Madrid
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will see, if they put fair questions there will be no problems. If they put subjetive or imprecise questions... 
The new styles does not mean that this questions will be about new content, am i right?
The new styles does not mean that this questions will be about new content, am i right?
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: six micro tesla zone
Age: 33
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information notice is now published together with a new video.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: egll
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to learn the material. The issue is there are simply not enough hours in the day. The way I'm going about it is learning the topics and principles that come up in BGS and aviation exam ... and the relevant answers.
I did spend some evenings trying to actually learn the stuff like in the A-Levels, maybe I'm slow, but I spent the best part of 5 hours on one lesson trying to get my head around some concepts. The next day I had the question bank on that topic done, with relevant topics learnt along with the answers ... all in under half the time.
I do not think it is humanely possible to learn all of this stuff in 7 months.
I did spend some evenings trying to actually learn the stuff like in the A-Levels, maybe I'm slow, but I spent the best part of 5 hours on one lesson trying to get my head around some concepts. The next day I had the question bank on that topic done, with relevant topics learnt along with the answers ... all in under half the time.
I do not think it is humanely possible to learn all of this stuff in 7 months.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how did we manage before Question Banks were available with more subjects and negative marking (at least in my day)? At the risk of sounding negative, a youngster struggling to retain ATPL content might well find they have problems getting through a type-rating.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: egll
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I'm seeing, I don't know anyone who doesn't find ground school difficult or challenging at best. There is a limit to how much info you can smack into someone's brain in such a short period of time, naturally you will forget it as time goes on and you are lumped with more material.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to learn the material. The issue is there are simply not enough hours in the day. The way I'm going about it is learning the topics and principles that come up in BGS and aviation exam ... and the relevant answers.
I did spend some evenings trying to actually learn the stuff like in the A-Levels, maybe I'm slow, but I spent the best part of 5 hours on one lesson trying to get my head around some concepts. The next day I had the question bank on that topic done, with relevant topics learnt along with the answers ... all in under half the time.
I do not think it is humanely possible to learn all of this stuff in 7 months.
I did spend some evenings trying to actually learn the stuff like in the A-Levels, maybe I'm slow, but I spent the best part of 5 hours on one lesson trying to get my head around some concepts. The next day I had the question bank on that topic done, with relevant topics learnt along with the answers ... all in under half the time.
I do not think it is humanely possible to learn all of this stuff in 7 months.
After a master's degree I was able to learn everything in a grand total of about 400 hours (the remainder of the 650hours being revising before the tests), which equates to about 2.5 to 3 months of full time learning.
Actually I had learnt some of the content during the master's courses.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm lead to believe that in Lithuania you can see immediately after picking each individual question whether you got it right or wrong ... I take it it isn't the same elsewhere?
Every testing system has its pros and cons. Multiple choice is hard to devise, since the correct answers must not be too obvious and the incorrect answers must be close and believable without being deliberately confusing. Most examiners hate devising multiple choice questions. I spent quite a lot of time with those, in another technical environment. They are limited in what can be tested well.
It is easy to default asking silly questions about irrelevant minutiae, like the dates of regulations. Harder to ask good questions about practical matters without the questions becoming unduly long and complicated. It is easy to assess and cheap to mark.
It does encourage some to ‘study to the test’, in place of understanding the topics. It is possible to pass without real understanding. That said, someone who understands the topics will do fine, if they read the questions carefully and stay calm.
The current questions, if the trial questions are any guide, do include what I would view as ‘trick’ questions, designed to catch candidates out. That I think is unsatisfactory, but very common. The new ‘quadrant’ process ought to be better, provided no trick questions are involved. Time will tell !
It is easy to default asking silly questions about irrelevant minutiae, like the dates of regulations. Harder to ask good questions about practical matters without the questions becoming unduly long and complicated. It is easy to assess and cheap to mark.
It does encourage some to ‘study to the test’, in place of understanding the topics. It is possible to pass without real understanding. That said, someone who understands the topics will do fine, if they read the questions carefully and stay calm.
The current questions, if the trial questions are any guide, do include what I would view as ‘trick’ questions, designed to catch candidates out. That I think is unsatisfactory, but very common. The new ‘quadrant’ process ought to be better, provided no trick questions are involved. Time will tell !
