Theory training requirements for pilots

[tommacklin]

A degree and a chartered accountant...then you may be aware of the benefit of studying past question papers. The system on this side of the pond is very similar to that.

Rote learning is the ability to repeat back what you have learned without necessarily undestanding or being able to apply what was learned. That is not the case here. Each bank of questions contains thousands. In the study books, the questions are presented and relevant reference material is listed, where appropriate a worked example is given. The candidate is then guided through why the other answers are wrong.

As with most multi-choice models, some of the answers are very close therefore the topic has to be understood in order to choose the correct answer. Unless, of course, you are able to memorise the thousands of potential questions.

I see the benefit of this approach being that the candidate's study is directed at the questions he/she will be asked. No red herrings, no time and effort wasted learning peripheral information that is not required for the test.

I would suggest that to be a more sensible and user friendly system, but what do I know?

[Flying Lawyer]

Whirlygig

I think Bronx was referring to professional training in the aviation context, not professional exams generally.

_________________


I have no first hand experience of professional training and wouldn't presume to comment on that but, based on studying for the CAA PPL exams and some (never completed) study for an unrestricted FAA PPL, I think the FAA system is better.
I like the FAA's focused 'practical application' approach and (except in academic study) think it's a waste of time learning things which will never be of any use other than for answering questions in exams.

[Martin1234]

Problem is that very few is lobbying in order to make a change of the JAR examination system. As a candidate for the exams it's easier to just do the exams. I highly doubt that authority employees and groundschools are doing too much to make a change.

I like the FAA's focused 'practical application' approach and, except in academic study

I think the crux of the matter is that JAA want to make it academic. Causes that lie behind the academic studying needed might be to help bleaching the pilot's collar. In order to pass the JAR exams you can't go directly from kindergarten to flight school.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Just a little note in the defence of Bristol and the other ground schools - a lot of people don't know that when they submit their courses or variations of them, the CAA charge ASTRONOMICAL sums of money to approve them. We're talking in the tens of thousands !!! Don't you just love it when all the coffee machines go ' free' at 10 o'clock at Gatwick Towers ?? I've been studying the FAA stuff recently, and what a piece of piss after doing the JAA stuff - at least this is one advantage, doing the JAA courses puts you in an excellent position when you want to gain other foreign licenses !

TFS - feeling better !

[NickLappos]

Knowing why the thing behaves as it does is essential to good flying skills, theory is very important.

That being said, tons of arcane trivia pounded at great expense into the candidate pilot's head is NOT good theory, and is often quite capable of actually diluting what should be known, so that the net result is worse than if no theory had been taught.

IMHO, the "theory" that the typical European training course expounds is in three parts -

1) some good stuff, supportive of what pilots do. This is the skinniest third of the course.

2) Some arcane trivia, not likely to ever be useful, and capable of diluting the good stuff. I recall flying some great Dutch pilots who had just done an IFR sim course, and they were busy calculating the entry heading in holding to permit a perfect turn onto the inbound course. Spent valuable brain cells crunching away on their kneepads, while the machine tended for itself! Poor bastards, they were actually taught how to hold (read holding as "wasting time, predictably") with precision!

3) Incorrect mangling of aerodynamics and physics, taught with the seriousness and infallibility of a Papal decision. These folks line up like lemmings here on pprune when we have our annual "Urban Myths" bar-fight.

Nobody likes theory teaching and learning more than me, nobody, but the theory most Europeans get taught is 2/3 trash. If one wants to toss their nose in the air when discussing how much better the CAA/JAA theory courses are (TFS, sorry!) then just line up and face the music. You are NO better in accident records, far rarer as a percent of population, own half the aircraft per capita, fly 1/3 the hours per capita and likely to pay perhaps 3 times the amount of an American pilot's course.

You HAVE to study theory, the ACTUAL flying is too expensive!

Any time a CAA/JAA guy wants me to post how simply awful the European Aviation systems are at building, promoting or expanding aviation, let me know. I am cracking my knuckles in anticipation! Were some of the true European pioneers to come back and see what you lot have allowed your governments to do to aviation, they would cry. After they put on their little orange vests, that is. ;-)

[paco]

Quite agree, Nick - European aviation thinking is still mostly over 60 years behind the times (note I said mostly - there are pockets of brilliance here and there), and geared to making you able to fix things in the jungle when there's nobody else around - why else would you need to learn about Cathode Ray Tubes and the use of sticky-backed plastic? "If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you". Well, that's the same reason we still have children being spanked.

Only one point I wish to make about the US & Canadian systems - the flight tests and interviews are where the action is, and any lack of effort in gaining knowledge for the exams soon becomes painfully obvious. Treating the exams as a tick in the box is not a good idea.

Phil

[helicopter-redeye]

PS - Helicopter red-eye - auditors will still have to audit the tax accounts in a set of financial statements

PS Whirlygig - helicopter pilots still have to fly in the same Met conditions and alongside fixed wing pilots. In the firm I worked for, you got a tax expert in to do the tricky stuff around the T word. Can't do that in a helicopeter ..

h-r

[tommacklin]

Nick,

I don't think anyone is saying that the CAA/JAA system is any better than the US/Canadian so don't put your boxing gloves on just yet.

I tend to agree with Paco that the real action takes place downstream from the examination room. Every year I do my 135 check, the classroom check by the inspector takes 4 hours before we even look at the aircraft, and it is 4 hours of probing questions and discussion. Every year I come away from the check having learned something from the inspector, thats the way I like it.

[Shawn Coyle]

Theory is needed, provided it is the right theory.
But if they (the EASA / JAA / CAA) are still making pilots do AC and DC electrics theory, that's not right.
Why not make A320 pilots do computer theory and digital theory now that we have computers flying the machine?
And the accident rates don't show, as Nick has pointed out, any improvement in safety over the FAA / Transport Canada methods.

[Oogle]

The UK theory exam has obviously been highlighted as the most over the top.

I myself agree with what all are saying. How can we let this continue to happen?

If so many people think that the theory requirements are too much, why doesn't someone come up with a more workable solution?

I fully agree that check rides must be "firm but fair".

Thanks for your thoughts so far.