8 Fails at the ATPL's
I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.
My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...
Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.
Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: on the edge.
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.
My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...
Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.
Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: ro
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To pass these exams, you have to do practise with the latest quiz database. Focus you attention only with quiz..I did it for 8 hours per day and for 2 months before to try the exams.
And at the end I passed all of them in 3 sessions...first attempt with an average of 93%, lowest score 86%.
after that I started to study for real..! Remember..to pass these exams the only way is do quiz...you will study all important stuff adter passing exams.
good luck and don’t give up
And at the end I passed all of them in 3 sessions...first attempt with an average of 93%, lowest score 86%.
after that I started to study for real..! Remember..to pass these exams the only way is do quiz...you will study all important stuff adter passing exams.
good luck and don’t give up
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Palmas
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.
Mammagoose - I'd question (no pun intended) your groundschool and/or method of revision. I suggest you need some professional advice and, if you haven't done already, I'd take Alex up on his offer at #20.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When things start going wrong in an aircraft for real unfortunately they don't come in the form of multiple choice questions. Better to understand the theory and get 90% than memorise the question bank and get 95%.
To the OP: the ATPLs are merely a hoop to jump through. They have close to zero practical application in the real world. Unfortunately for you, I can't imagine any (reputable) employers of ab-initio cadets will look at anyone with 8 fails in their ATPLs. That's not to say you won't be able to get a job, but I think it's highly unlikely you'll find your way into an airliner with minimum hours.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: USA
Age: 42
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the OP, think back in your A-level days (or whatever the equivalent is for school leaving exams in your country), did your teachers tell you that "everything that will be in the exams is in your textbooks". While that statement is technically correct, you didnt only study off of your textbooks. There were homework, class notes, quizzes, prior year/semester exam paper, work books, etc....They are just like the QB in this monster ATPL. No shame in using it if it helps. Ask me how much I remember from my A-level, how much of that stuff I have used in the "real world"... the answer is not much! But that doesn't mean A-level was completely useless. It's a hurdle to jump thru to get a school leaving certificate. It would be tough to get your first job with bad grades.
Your learning wont stop just because you get thru these exams either.
Your learning wont stop just because you get thru these exams either.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but what comes out of all this confusion, having flown for nigh on 60 years in all departments including 20 years as an airline captain, it appears that exam setters are losing the plot. I don't think I could get my head around some of the "requirements" they ask these days.
What I CAN get my head around is how to comprehensively operate an aeroplane to satisfy my employer and turn him a profit. I understand the environment I operate in, be it weather or regulation.
I understand too what the engineer needs to know if I put an aircraft unserviceable, so that he can fix it; how to use ATC to achieve the shortest, most fuel efficient sector. I even try to understand the pressures that ground-staff have to put up with minute by minute.
Importantly, I think I also know how to get the best out of my mate in the right hand seat so that we have a successful, stress-free day even when things go against us. I don't need the accumulating, unnecessary BS that seems to constitute the academic side of a commercial pilot's career these days.
Perhaps some of the "setters" should get out into the real world and realise what is really needed to run a safe, successful operation day by day. The CAA inspectors used to do it and their contribution was welcome on board. Your fleet inspector became a friend.
My impression has been that, as each new exam setter came along, he/she would try to outdo the other with an even more remote question or unreal situation. Perhaps, as in the 70s, it's time for a new approach again.
Or maybe the commercial aviation business has been changed so much out of recognition that the time to hang my headset up has finally come.........
What I CAN get my head around is how to comprehensively operate an aeroplane to satisfy my employer and turn him a profit. I understand the environment I operate in, be it weather or regulation.
I understand too what the engineer needs to know if I put an aircraft unserviceable, so that he can fix it; how to use ATC to achieve the shortest, most fuel efficient sector. I even try to understand the pressures that ground-staff have to put up with minute by minute.
Importantly, I think I also know how to get the best out of my mate in the right hand seat so that we have a successful, stress-free day even when things go against us. I don't need the accumulating, unnecessary BS that seems to constitute the academic side of a commercial pilot's career these days.
Perhaps some of the "setters" should get out into the real world and realise what is really needed to run a safe, successful operation day by day. The CAA inspectors used to do it and their contribution was welcome on board. Your fleet inspector became a friend.
My impression has been that, as each new exam setter came along, he/she would try to outdo the other with an even more remote question or unreal situation. Perhaps, as in the 70s, it's time for a new approach again.
Or maybe the commercial aviation business has been changed so much out of recognition that the time to hang my headset up has finally come.........
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! My beef is with some of the tech reviewers, and with EASA who do seem to want medioctiry.
..
>> Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! <<
Not wishing to spoil your view of the "real world', Paco, but I spent a lot of time in my real world. For example I didn't get enough time off to make 3,775 posts......
As a number of contributors have stated, a lot of the exam content is quite useless when finally out into the true environment. Do trick questions seek out the mind of a a future, clear thinking young operator ? Or maybe only the sort of individual apparently needed in the current Civil Service these days, according to the newspapers ! I've worked along side both types. You don't need me to tell you who is more likely to get up to speed the quickest and become a good guy in either seat.
My "beef" is not with the question writers per se but those who choose which of those questions they feel are appropriate for exam papers.
Perhaps my brain spent too much time up to 40,000 feet as opposed to the restricted serendipity of the rotary world.
Still, welcome to the future.......
>> Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! <<
Not wishing to spoil your view of the "real world', Paco, but I spent a lot of time in my real world. For example I didn't get enough time off to make 3,775 posts......
As a number of contributors have stated, a lot of the exam content is quite useless when finally out into the true environment. Do trick questions seek out the mind of a a future, clear thinking young operator ? Or maybe only the sort of individual apparently needed in the current Civil Service these days, according to the newspapers ! I've worked along side both types. You don't need me to tell you who is more likely to get up to speed the quickest and become a good guy in either seat.
My "beef" is not with the question writers per se but those who choose which of those questions they feel are appropriate for exam papers.
Perhaps my brain spent too much time up to 40,000 feet as opposed to the restricted serendipity of the rotary world.
Still, welcome to the future.......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
My real world includes ATPs for helicopters and aeroplanes, plus 8700 accident-free hours, from IFR to firefighting - hardly restricted - and what does the number of posts have to do with anything? I might as well question the restricted view at 40,000 feet just watching the world go by.....
You will have to take it up with EASA because they are the ones who reject a perfectly good 9-word question and change it into something with 3 sentences., although, to be fair, the idiots who started it were the JAA, who should hang their collective heads in shame for screwing up what could have been a world-class system. They have tried to "improve" things with the new LOs, but the quality of questions seriously needs to be addressed.
You will have to take it up with EASA because they are the ones who reject a perfectly good 9-word question and change it into something with 3 sentences., although, to be fair, the idiots who started it were the JAA, who should hang their collective heads in shame for screwing up what could have been a world-class system. They have tried to "improve" things with the new LOs, but the quality of questions seriously needs to be addressed.
de minimus non curat lex
..
>> Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! <<
Not wishing to spoil your view of the "real world', Paco, but I spent a lot of time in my real world. For example I didn't get enough time off to make 3,775 posts......
My "beef" is not with the question writers per se but those who choose which of those questions they feel are appropriate for exam papers.
Perhaps my brain spent too much time up to 40,000 feet as opposed to the restricted serendipity of the rotary world.
Still, welcome to the future.......
>> Don't blame all the question writers - some of us, especially in the UK are from the real world! <<
Not wishing to spoil your view of the "real world', Paco, but I spent a lot of time in my real world. For example I didn't get enough time off to make 3,775 posts......
My "beef" is not with the question writers per se but those who choose which of those questions they feel are appropriate for exam papers.
Perhaps my brain spent too much time up to 40,000 feet as opposed to the restricted serendipity of the rotary world.
Still, welcome to the future.......
Sectors flown are also a measure of experience. My first airline aircraft was a Shorts 360. Flew 1086 hours with 1409 sectors. A wonderful experience.
Flying a B737 with a sector up to 6 hours [Red Sea] in the end before retirement.
Both were real world as was yours & PACO’s.
The number of pprune posts made are clearly irrelevant. You probably have more time on your hands during long periods of the cruise....
Seriously wondering whether just to let this go with a sigh ? Suffice it to say that I won't bore you with my total hours and number of types as only a proportion were high altitude cruise.
Besides a fighter background, high and low level, perhaps though I could include a few thousand hours instructing at all levels including commercial school i.e. TIRE, X, aeros, formation, maintenance testing, even joyriding.
Or maybe I'm not sufficiently qualified to contribute to the age-old argument of what does it take to make a good pilot, both academically and professionally ?
I just know the sort of chap and his background that I would want to work with .....and it doesn't include anoraks with 95% passes in all 14/15 subjects...... but can't fly.
Besides a fighter background, high and low level, perhaps though I could include a few thousand hours instructing at all levels including commercial school i.e. TIRE, X, aeros, formation, maintenance testing, even joyriding.
Or maybe I'm not sufficiently qualified to contribute to the age-old argument of what does it take to make a good pilot, both academically and professionally ?
I just know the sort of chap and his background that I would want to work with .....and it doesn't include anoraks with 95% passes in all 14/15 subjects...... but can't fly.
de minimus non curat lex
Whilst there are clearly some quality civilian instructors who are teaching to a high standard, the mainstay for (UK) commercial schools historically (last century) were RAF/RN QFIs A2 who would mainly retire from the Service aged 38, and were not (really) interested in the airlines.
With the continued contraction of the RAF since say the 1990s(?) the number of CFS trained pilots reduced and so the ‘passing on’ to the next generation of what is now mainly junior civilian FIs is much reduced.
The overall training quality is suffering since not only are the FIs less experienced, you have to question just how well some of them were taught in the first place...(contentious perhaps?)
The fundamental technique of selecting an attitude and trimming accurately must be taught well irrespective what course is being conducted.
I would suggest that this is the main reason for SLEEVE WING observation...then of course, there is over reliance on automation.
RAW DATA ILS anybody.......?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 33
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a 97% average on ECQB 4 and 5 exams using two different databases after studying the theory. My understanding is quite good and I've also got a degree in aerospace engineering, plus more than two years of working experience in the airline industry at the time of my exams.
My point of view is that not using at least one database makes absolutely no sense today.
If you understood the subjects you'd probably agree with the following:
Air Law: memory exam, 2% useful knowledge in the real world.
RNAV: memory exam with a lot of useless numbers to be remembered.
Ops: pure memory.
The two comms: see above.
M&B: maybe 10 definitions to memorize, then if you know how to balance momentums you're good.
AGK: made by an engineer for engineers, no point in asking such details to a pilot. A lot of questions are type-specific (usually 737, sometimes 320) even if not specified. Make a guess and hope to dodge the bullet.
Meteo: interesting subject, especially once you realize you're just memorizing an ideal, simplified model. Science for kids, a lot of useless stuff to be memorized, unless you think knowing how many TRS forms East/West of Darwin every year is somehow useful in a cockpit. I don't. Anyway I enjoyed studying it.
Performance: learn how to use a POH and memorize a lot of factors because real pilots can't use manuals and notes, only their memory. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions.
Flight planning: liked it, but not using a question bank at least once will get you a nice fail.
POF: total nonsense. A lot of unwritten assumptions in the questions. A lot of wrong answers given as correct, especially in the supersonic flight section.
Instr: liked it, but quite similar to AGK. A lot of useless details for a pilot.
GNAV: nice one. Even nicer when they ask you to use CRP5 with answers differing by 1 kts or 1 degree. Examiner literally said to me:"I don't think they should include questions like this in the exam". You HAVE to use the CRP5 in some questions and the wind formula in others, otherwise you'll get the wrong answer. Even if it's even more precise than the one marked in green.
Human: meeeeeeemory and a lot of symptoms listed as correct are wrong or extremely rare (yes, working as an EMT as well).
I was even lucky enough to get an NAA which forbids the use of the Jeppesen Manual, so do you remember all those strange symbols, acronyms, minima and so on? Well, time to play memory games again...
Not using question banks in 2020 is just stupid and makes totally no sense when you're committed to first-passes with 90% or more. Advising someone to do the opposite is just pure sabotage.
Passing exams and understanding a subject are two completely separated processes. The first will get you a signed document from your NAA, the latter will make you pass your first technical interview and hopefully give you a rough basic idea on how things work. But when things will go wrong in flight these laughable exams won't do anything to help you.
You'll save the day with what your flight instructor taught in that little Cessna a million years ago, what that funny TRI managed to write into your brain during your TR and what that rich plane builder wrote in the QRH. And luck. That's pretty much it.