Ops
 

what happened with the ops exams, i have it next month....

Same here, I was getting 90% plus everytime on Aviation exam, walked out the exam not knowing what the hell I had been studying and only got 60 marks in the exam!! So back to studying!!

OPS!
 

Hi all

Any further feedback on the OPS exam would be greatly appreciated. I'm sitting it next week and noticing people's responses hasn't got me feeling too great! :yuk:

Rgds

M

Ops was an easy given exam about 9th month ago, looks like those new questions have appeared

There would be a lot more about the insides of a company and AOC operations as opposed to aerial work.

A good read of COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 would be instructive ;)

Phil

doco
 

thats a 148 page document?! anything a bit more specific, some example questions pls?

Well, I wrote a lot of them so I'm not about to tell you what they are. But all of them were taken from that document. I don't think it's too much to ask any pilot to know the rules that govern their activities, even if there are 148 pages.

As mentioned, more of an emphasis on company operations, who is responsible for what, with a fair sprinkling of performance regs and obstruction clearance would be a good start.

phil

Thank you for the heads up Phil!

M

ta
 

thanks, howcome its only coming out like this rather than through the schools, i mean, hardly fair if people not expecting this extra material.

Incoming.........!!

Hi Phil,

I see that you mention you wrote a series of questions for the OPS exam, using statements taken from "Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012". Now this may be a stupid question, but when you wrote the questions would you hand-on-heart be able to say that you could link every one to an EASA learning objective, as opposed to plucking statements out of the document for the sake of writing questions?

The reason I ask is that our instructors teach us OPS directly alongside the EASA learning objectives, so there should be nothing in these exams that we haven't already been taught or seen before. I just wondering why so many people have failed this exam all of a sudden? I've been through the learning objectives myself and won't be afraid to comment and appeal anything that I feel doesn't fall inline with an LO statement.

Than again, am I just being paranoid?

I just do what I am asked - you need to take that question up with EASA. They give all question writers a list of LO areas in which to write questions.

It seems that the new raft of questions has finally made it to the coal face.

"thanks, howcome its only coming out like this rather than through the schools, i mean, hardly fair if people not expecting this extra material."

I am a school :)* and it has been mentioned for months on here that new questions are being written every year. Did you expect that they would stay static for ever?

Phil

*and I have been in contact with other schools with a heads up on the new LOs, having asked their opinion in the peer reviews, in case you think I am keeping it to myself. :) Naturally, this does not apply to questions. Not even my students know about those.

I suppose it depends on if you have been studying based on the Learning Objectives, or studying answers to question banks?

questions
 

ok thanks paco,and most recent most, not learning just via question bank but through the online material that I am given, not seen the learning objectives, just the lectures I have been given, where is the link to the LO.

obviously as well, there is an element of doing the question bank and learning the type of question etc and how it is asked and lets be honest there is a bit of remembering what you think the answer is rather than understanding every single bit of detail as the content is so large....

Current LOs can be found here (NPA);

https://easa.europa.eu/document-libr...osed-amendment

Hi Phil,
Was it the existing NPA25 LO or NPA29 LO the questions were written for? The NPA 25 Learning Objectives listed requirements as "LO State the requirements for First Aid Kits (OPS 1.735) where as the current regulations are a different format CAT.IDE.A.220 First-aid kit

What was the latest amendment you used with COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012? Was it COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/640 of 23 April 2015. That takes it to about 401 pages.

The EASA Easy Access Rules for Air Operations runs to 1673 pages and is COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 with guidance material.

NPA 2014-29 (D)(1) for subjects 010 to 040 and NPA 2014-29 (D)(2) for subjects 050 to 090.

https://easa.europa.eu/document-libr...osed-amendment

We tried to get away from the numbers and stick to the simple requirements. For example, the phrase is "According to regulations" (if used) was used as opposed to "Under JAR OPS 4.666...."

Phil

I am waiting for clarification from the CAA. At first sight it appears that ECB03 (the latest question bank) has been partly populated according to the learning objectives in NPA 2014-29. This NPA has not yet been ratified by an Agency decision.

Edited to add: The CAA have just replied and denied that this is the case, and say that all questions are to the older NPA-25 objectives that we teach to.

Been keeping an eye on this thread as our class were one of the unfortunate lot to have taken it this week. Still can't believe the CAA are digging their heels in, even when the evidence is there to see it was an unfair exam. (We've been told one person passed in the whole country this week!)

So I'm trying to gather as much info together as possible before our resits next week. If anyone can shed some light to where these new question are coming from it would be greatly appreciated.

And if anyone knows what the correct procedure for a cabin crew member who discovers a slow decompression is? Our guesses were all wrong!!

And there's a ridiculous question......

Phil

Thats not even the worst....

How about; When fighting a fire with a handheld fire extinguisher in the cabin, you should be?
A Directly above the fire
B 1.5 - 2.5m
C 5m
D Close to the base of the fire

So no mention of the type of extinguisher, how large the fire is, or what's actually burning!!

We've worked out it's 1.5 -2.5m by comparing results. So I hope it helps somebody in the future!!

In the form stated, that should be the subject of a fire course when you join a company.

Phil

But that's the sort of random facts we apparently need to know. I have no complaints about new questions being added but when they are becoming, lets say, opinionated, how are we suppose to study for them?

I've had a look at that document you recommended to read Phil and that goes over a lot of what we already know. It's just a lot of these are coming from sources that our instructors aren't familiar with and if that's the case, how do we stand a chance!?

I hear you - we have the same problem here about when to stop, but if you keep the numbers out of the equation, the stuff in 965 is pretty much the same, I think. One problem with that question is, what reference did they use? The Manual of Firemanship? I don't think so! At least, not the copy I have here.

I have made the point (to EASA) that no school has any confidence in the question bank, and they won't as long as the source material for the questions is not disclosed to the teachers, however much it might be in the metadata to the questions. As a school, I don't want to know the questions - all I want is the knowledge that the questions will be sensible and practical, and where they came from, then I can teach properly in line with standard industry practice! Leaving the schools to guess and leaving the poor student to find out after the exam that they guesssed wrong is not fair (to the student) and unprofessional. Why should they have to come up with wrong answers in order to get a question "right"?

However, at least the LOs have been revised - maybe some revision of the question bank could be now forthcoming. It's long overdue.

Phil

Could anyone quickly clarify what is meant by "aerial work" in the OPS sense, just so I've got an idea as to what the focus has been shifted from.

Thanks!

Whenever new questions are introduced they should be fed into the exams gradually to enable schools and students to aclimatise themselves to any new study areas or change of emphasis. If a student finds himself/herself faced with a large number of new questions focusing on new study material or changed study emphasis, he/she will obviously feel cheated.

But we must also resist the temptation of being too easily offended. The fire extinguisher question in this thread is actually quite reasonable it refers to a hand held extinguisher in a cabin, so we can reasonably conclude that it is a small halon or water extinguisher.

If we are directly above the fire or too close to the base we will probably get burned.

If we are 5 metres from the fire the extinguisher will not reach it. So the only valid option is 1.5 to 2.5 metres. 1 to 1.5 metres would be a better option but that is not available.

In effect the question is testing whether the candidate knows the following (common sense) requirements when fighting a fire.

1. Stand in a safe place.
2. Use the extinguisher effectively.

I would argue that no student should go anywhere near an aircraft without knowing these two requirements.

Any student who had received instruction on the basics of fire fighting should be able to answer the question. But any student who had simply memorised a lot of numbers about how many extinguishers are required for various numbers of seats would not be able to answer it.

Good points, Keith, but one should direct the extinguisher to the base of the fire. To do that effectively using a handheld you would have to be close to it (one to two metres). Not very fair options, really, and typical of the poor quality of EASA questions. If you are going to test fighting cabin upholstery fires IMHO you should test the types of extinguisher to use and where to direct the extinguishant, which is how they teach the cabin crew. The distance flows automatically because too close, you burn, too far away it doesn't work. I have never seen anyone get that wrong.

Alex you are of course correct in saying that the extinguisher should be directed at the base of the fire. But the question ask (where should you be) not (where should you aim the extinguisher). That option was probably put in to catch out the people who could not be bothered to read the question.

You are also correct in saying that 1 or 2 metres would be best. That is why I suggested 1 to 1.5 metres.

Although I not wish to defend the authors of the questions or the CAA, I do believe that some instructors and students are far too keen to criticise the questions instead of applying a bit of logical deduction (cdf) to them. As long as this attitude persists, the reputation of the exams will never improve.

The question of which type of extinguisher to use is a bit of a moot point. You can only use those that are available, and in the cabin of an aircraft the range of choices is extremely limited.

...but if you were 1 to 2 metres from the base of the fire would you not be 'close to the base of the fire'? Answer (d), yet apparently incorrect.

( Close to the base) could mean anything from zero-point-smidgen to not very much. (1.5 to 2.5 metres) suggests a safer distance. If the student approaches the question logically he/she should be able to select the better of the two. But if he/she starts with the assumption that all of the question are rubbish, the task of selecting the best option will be much more difficult.

It would be very interesting to know how many students looked at this and the other new questions and cried...I have not seen these questions before....It is all so unfair, instead of simply looking at them calmly.

Keith, old chap, when you are reduced to arguing that 1m from the base of the fire is not close to it you illustrate the insanity that we put up with on a regular basis. Lord knows, it brings my SMEs close to tears sometimes, one cannot blame the candidates for being upset.

Ops
 

Well said Alex!

Now anyone else remember any other questions that may come up in the Ops exam?

Are they likely to revert to the previous exam?

How many new questions where in the new exam?

Thanks.

The fact remains , some students have been skimming the question banks to much , and have literally passed the exam on the question bank alone.

This overhaul of the questions , has been a long time coming ....The only people it will effect will be the question bank providers....( and of course people who use the question banks for learning only)

The Students who are learning the stuff, will have no issues....

It happened over here in OZ for flight planning ATPL A, with a failure rate of about 90%.( CASA changed the exam questions) The theory providers just explored the LO and re wrote the notes, it took a few months, but they got the pass mark back up to about 75%,it caused a bit of pain.....

When i did my EASA conversion about 18 month ago, 1 candidate walked out of ops in 8 minutes ,he had seen all the answers in the question banks

Of course passing the exams from question banks is unsatisfactory. I think the point that Paco makes further up this thread is that the existence and widespread use of the question banks derives directly from the incompetence of EASA and their predecessors. If the exams contained questions that were all written (i) in comprehensible english (ii) to properly defined learning objectives (iii) with only one correct answer and (iv) with clearly defined reference material there would be no need for them. As an example the answer to the question above is being debated by four very experienced subject experts and we cannot agree, it could be (b) or (d). We only seem to know which answer is marked correct by looking at students' scores in exams. How is a (presumably less experienced) candidate to know which answer is correct unless he/she has seen the question before and been told which one to go for? For the record I would have chosen (d), and apparently been 'wrong'.

As to who will be disadvantaged... as you say we will get our heads around the new questions in a few months and of course revise our teaching material to address the new questions. The only people who will be disadvantaged will be the candidates who take the exams in the few months after the changes, and these are candidates who have been correctly taught to the existing LOs, not necessarily just people who have been hammering the question bank. Our point is that this is unfair and unnecessary - Keith makes the very valid point that these changes could be fed in slowly. Once again EASA has presented us with exams that are not fit for purpose, and where is the accountability? Would this be acceptable in GCSEs? or A-levels? or in the bar exam?

Alex...Agree with what your saying , unfortunately all governments seem to act with knee jerk reactions and don't see the end consequences....

Another example in OZ, ATPL flight test needed a MCC course...guess what regulator had not approved anyone to conduct these courses....consequence ATPL flight test stopped.....people waiting for command seats delayed......

It did get sorted and candidates payed heavily for the new courses...:ugh:

I think companies like yours and phils , will simply rewrite the material

If you are unable to make any progress with EASA exam dept, have you considered approaching your MEP / MP and seek their help?

You simply cannot have "exams that are not fit for purpose".

The resources are clearly not present to ensure that a robust and fair process exist.

As you say, if they were UK public exams for the general population, questions would have already been asked with HMG involvement.

Sadly, I have been within a fingersnap of talking with the Transport Minister, but other (governmental) priorities intervened.

If anyone woudl like to join in, I would be only too happy to try again.....

Phil

Why don't you guys study your theory instead of learning the questions?!

In my time, only 10% of candidates passed the aviation School assessment, study level was of University engineering level but much faster and exams were partly oral and open question written.

Result was proficient and knowledgeable aviators, not useless and clueless button pushers.

I say: get rid of all private schools that have only profits on their minds, make the academy state sponsored again like Maritime academy and get the proficiency up to the level of the nineties. ( the level of the Belgian Aviation School).

You can't have read the thread properly. Learning the theory won't get you a pass with the current system, when 20% of the questions are factually wrong, as admitted by EASA themselves. The fault lies much huigher in the food chain.

Phil