EASA ATPL Changing Question style
 

Good evening all

Is anyone here aware of EASA changing the style of questions? I read the thread from January about there being editions made to their current question bank, but there is nothing about new question styles as such. To be more specific, I was shown a document listing 4 changes:

1. Current Questions are being revised (already known as mentioned)
2. Multi select ... you don't just pick A, B, C, D ... rather a list of possible answers are shown and you must pick the correct ones i.e. more than one.
3. Fill in the blanks using drop down menus
4. Typing in answers (mainly numbers)

Can anyone shed some light? This is quite stressful. I am revising the material but there are tiny bits of info in every subject that is very easy to forget ... especially when you have 5 exams in the one session.

Thank you all

Yes, that's true. The letter is a UK CAA 'notice in advance of an information notice' which says that, although they planned just to introduce 'write in' answers for calculation questions they have changed their mind and will introduce the full suite as of August in some exams. They say there will be a video on their website shortly and the title infers there is an Information Notice in draft somewhere about to be formally issued.

Having read the letter several times the inference is that they will start by putting existing questions into the new format, so, for instance, questions like "Which of the following statements is true?" will change from (a) I, II, IV, VI and VII (b) etc.. to actually selecting the correct statements.

We have the programmers working on the new formats for bgsonline and will be doing likewise so that you get some practice. I imagine aviationexam will be doing the same.

Just study the material as seriously as you can and you should be all right.

What he said :)

Hi Alex,

I appreciate your input, thank you. I am a subscriber to BGSonline and due to sit my first CAA exams in September. Are you aware of whether they are bringing this in across the board at the same time, or are the CAAs of each country being allowed to make their own decision as to when they begin to implement the new approach? I've gone abroad for my training and won't be sitting my exams in the UK so would be interested to know.

I am studying the material in great depth. But even the biggest brains must admit the sheer quantity of all the tiny snippets of info is huge ... in previous years this was made up for by (reasonably) predictable exams, with this luxury being taken away it adds another degree of stress to the situation.

Main concepts are OK, such as how a hydraulic system works or pressurisation, it's the small terms/definitions peppered about the place that can very easily be forgotten and look like they can catch you out.

Thank you all

The UK CAA say that this has already started to be implemented in other EASA states. I don't know which states they are referring to but I imagine the take-up depends on which exam software provider each state uses. The German LBA have had extra questions which require written answers for some years.

At first sight this will have no effect on the content of questions and, provided the range of acceptable values for 'write in' answers is properly calculated it should have minimal/zero impact on anyone studying.

Some old questions will change format, most will not. Some new questions will be in the new format.

Are those dates set and concrete Alex? Would there be any likelihood of the CAA changing exams at earlier dates?

Beats me, I wouldn't think it would happen earlier, maybe later. I don't see this as being anything to worry about, the content will be the same, its just some answer formats changing.

I can't say I've seen that kind of change in style, but I can say that here in Spain, new questions are appearing in AGK and POF (ATPL) exams.
In my AGK exam I got 5 new autobrake questions + 3 electrical diagrams I had never seen before. I've been using E-ATPL, not AvExam (which I know is far more complete).
POF exam, I can't say yet as I haven't sat for it.

Thank you all again for your input.

What on earth could they possibly ask about autobrakes that hasn't already been asked :confused: Auto braking and its principles are quite a short part of the braking section though ... 5 new ones alone on this topic seems excessive :/

As for the electric diagrams you say we've never seen, well they are known for being :mad: i guess

momo95....you will see when you sit CAA first time how much shizz this easa "friends" can come up with...enjoy it.

Yes, one must reckon that.
It would require very serious preparation without any question bank.
Much more than what current students usually do.

Recent students are being spoon fed their ATPLs. Didn't have a question bank when I did mine, didn't have a problem assuming you're being taught properly.

Now I admit, if you're using BGS for example you're going to be distance learning, so you won't have a department full of instructors available 24/7, hence the question bank is very usuful. But the amount abuse and reliance the question banks now gets is a joke. I'm glad the ATPLs are being shaken up, it's about time students were made to think.

is this going to affect all subjects?

eventually yes

When you did yours, the ATPL was not full of weird, ambigious, questions written with an even more ambiguos English.

Why would a Captain speak among the lines to his first officer? Because then later he can claim to have been misunderstood. Yes, this is an actual ATPL question.
What defines a first group? A family celebrating the mother's 40th birthday. Yes, this is another ATPL question.

And I could list you more questions, with different correct answers in several countries. One in Performance for example has 4150 as correct answer in Germany, 3860 in Poland.
In another question in Flight Planning a CB apparently does not imply severe turbulence and icing, just some moderate stuff.

First they need to fix this, sort this mess out. Then they should change it.

It is going to be a massive :mad:

Look the amount of questions that are simply designed to trick the student, questions outside of the learning objectives and questions that EASA gives 2 right answers for and the least right one is actually the "correct" one is just ridiculous. This is the reason why people have used question banks, how else will you know which answer to give when they present you with two equally wrong or 2 equally right answers?

By all means encourage us to learn, but ask us reasonable stuff that is designed to see our knowledge on a topic, not what luck we have in picking the right wrong answer. I'd be playing the lotto if I had such luck about me!

Indeed. I also wonder how many pilots in general would pass the new exams with high scores.

Will they be asking all current pilots to redo the tests in the current format to ensure all pilots are up to the same standard? If not, then it defeats the whole purpose of trying to up the standard.

If this is being done in the interest of safety then that's all well and good, however I fail to see what extra safety benefit it will give considering a significant majority of those already qualified will not pass the current tests and won't be asked to.

Edit to add the entire thing reeks of arrogance on behalf of EASA. Who do they answer to? All other exam boards I know of regularly conduct reviews of the exams they are providing, and more importantly they address issues with exams as and when they arise. EASA's approach is "ask them whatever we can to trip them up and don't give them any hope of putting us to task" ... they are untouchable.

You can of course complain about specific questions, by the time you get the result of the complaint your mates would have probably achieved command ...

'Safety' agency? I think not. Focus the exams on what we need to know and stop trying to trick us.

Guys, I've just been through this pain, and I have an advice for you.

Just work towards result, as simple as that. The result that counts is the passing score. This exam has nothing to the real knowledge but it can easily stop your career. So just focus on passing.

Resume the real learning once you got past it. A good pilot learns throughout one's life.

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) :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Personally, I think the terms are too generous. I think the number of attempts should be reduced to two, at least.

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.

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.

I don't know maybe you are right, perhaps i am scared about the exams because EVERYONE is telling that they are so difficult...:confused: .
6 months with job? Really?

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.

:ugh:

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 ?

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%...:ugh:

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.

I agree many people does this because they want a "cool" job.

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...

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 :)

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!

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.

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.

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.