Well if it is not in an LO, yes. But be aware the CAA have been known to stretch the application of LOs in the past to avoid giving in to appeals. The LOs themselves are a root part of the problem, they completely lack depth of knowledge indicators and do not give references. Thus 'Describe a simple hydraulic system' could have an infinity of meanings depending on your interpretation of 'describe', 'simple' and 'system'. 'Hydraulic' too for that matter.

Appeal Questions
 

I looked at the online video for the new questions and it seems you can write your comments on the questions and I guess this is where you could appeal a question, how does appealing work, should you appeal all the questions you are not happy with at the time?

Thanks.

You can comment as much as you like on a question but the CAA won't take any notice of it unless you pay for a review.

q
 

ah ok, I thought you can appeal questions or the like? how much is a remark?

Basically same price as an exam, leaving comments at the end or on the individual questions, waste of time......

Any one sat the new ops procedures exam have any feedback regarding the new questions or any that are not in the LOs as I have the exam coming up soon and it would be greatly appreciated.

many thanks!

Hi everyone, regarding the BMI, in atplonline a male normal weight is 20-25, but in all website it states 18.5 to 25. Has anyone come up to this question in the caa exam? thanks :ok:

CAT.OP.MPA.285 Use of supplemental oxygen

The commander shall ensure that flight crew members engaged in performing duties essential to the safe operation of an aircraft in flight use supplemental oxygen continuously whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 10 000 ft for a period of more than 30 minutes and whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 13 000 ft.

WTF?

I've never even seen a BMI question, let alone had it in my exam. Just remember that the limit is 25 (25 to 30 = overweight, over 30 = obese).

What exactly you don't get?

Flying below 10,000 ft: no need
Flying between 10,000 and 13,000 ft: after 30 minutes
Flying above 13,000 ft: always

Obviously I understand what the words in the sentence mean - the problem is is it differs from the the requirements explained elsewhere. I always undetstood that flight crew had to have oxygen for the entire flight time above 10 000

Which is correct if you're in an unpressurised aircraft!
If you're just starting to learn the ruthless oxy regs (for the 070 exam), I'd start by making a bold distinction between pressurised and unpressurised aircraft and the respective supply requirements for flight crew, cabin crew, and passengers (with their percentiles). Any 070 book will have summary tables.

I get that there is a difference between pressurised and unpressurised - but it doesn't mention that in this reg.

Alex, has the BGS Online question bank been updated with the new Ops Procedures questions? Thanks.

I've been away for a week but before I left there were at least 60 new (A) questions added in 070 and around 40 new (H) questions. Will report back on Monday. We have had no success trying to get the CAA to either consider this as a quality issue or to publish the syllabus they use. pilot career news article explains. The CAA say there are more new Op Procedures questions to come but this month I am told VFR comms is the exam with new questions.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible to know what the situation is like with other authorities around Europe, especially in Poland?
The current UK CAA situation is scaring me a bit.

Some of them will lag behind as some of them don't use computerised systems, but the new questions are available to all authorities.

Phil

All the Authorities were given ECB03 in November with 9 months to implement it. The requirement is for them to examine with questions drawn from the ECB. They don't have to use them all although most do because they don't have either the resources or the will to filter through them. Paradoxically the UK CAA are among the best of the 'Competent Authorities' generally with a proactive approach to improving the European Question Bank. In this case, though, I'm afraid they could have done better. In particular, to justify the exams by saying 'the questions are covered by the learning objectives' despite being told repeatedly (and very forcefully) that (1) the objectives themselves are flawed and (2) that the questions being generated are often poor, and secondly to take no action to set up adequate quality controls is an abrogation of the responsibility that they have as a public body examining a professional qualification. In addition, to justify the inclusion of questions as 'covered by the learning objectives' whilst simultaneously refusing to publish those very learning objectives is bizarre, and they should correct it immediately. How on earth are students meant to follow their instruction to 'study the learning objectives and not rely on question banks'? It beggars belief.

The matter of what constitutes a good question (factually accurate and unambiguous) has always been a thorny one. Questions are often written by instructors who presumably feel that their questions are perfectly good. Instructors from other schools then see these questions in feedback from their students and come to a very different conclusion. Part of this problem is caused by different interpretations, but part of it is also caused by differing levels of instructor knowledge. A solution to this problem is unlikely to be achieved any time soon.

The matter of questions being based on published learning objectives should be easier to resolve. PACO, you have written some of the new OPS questions. Did you base these questions on published learning objectives?

Hi there, I sat the exams last week, gutted I failed VFR Comms, I passed Met and got Ops thanks to the recent hard work from people who had sat it before. Personally think its a joke, been to Uni twice and these exams are the hardest things I have done. The Met paper I got was really really hard, some stinker questions and I got a mid 80 pass, never failed a VFR Comms paper and got 60 odd in it, 11 of the questions I was struggling with, never seen them before and did not understand them and did not see how they were Comms related.

I think its a joke and the recent article by Alex W shows the hard work and dedication that he puts into his work with his students. I called the CAA got some phone operator who didnt know what an exam was, spoke with a manager who didnt know about the exams either. Its a joke and a waste of £68 but its the CAA, accountable to no one!

Hi Keith - question writers are given a range of LOs within which to write questions. There is no choice on our part, so the answer to your question is yes. At present they are beefing up areas in which there has been no activity, so you will see many questions for LOs that have previously been given no attention. If you think it's bad enough as a school trying to teach in those areas, it's harder when you don't understand the LO in the first place!

I don't know what questions, if any, have already been written and it is often hard to come up with something original that is of practical use to a pilot. I have subjects for the next round that I would rather avoid for this reason!

The next problem are the technical reviewers - it is a lottery as to whether they know anything at all.

I must say at this point that the ladies who do the initial reviewing of a question as to its viability as a question (i.e. non-technical aspects) are pretty good at their job.

Some of the recent OPS questions actually should not have been in the exams at all - we had a recent CPL(H) candidate who got 4 questions on the ILS, which is not even in the LOs!