Airline insisting on 90%+ exam pass marks

Stickandrudderman wrote:

I was chatting to a friend recently who is an Airbus left seater and I said that 90% of what you learn in most exam environments is bollocks that you will never use

It is the same with all education. Engineering for instance, the first 2-3 years at university is tons of math, physics and so on, and I mean tons. It is not that the average engineer will ever use more than 5% of it. What is important is to learn how to be capable of learning lots and lots in a short time. Being able to do that is a key competence, at least for most larger industrial companies. The same principle is used in the military, in the air force and other specialized stuff.

LeSving wrote:

It is not that the average engineer will ever use more than 5% of it. What is important is to learn how to be capable of learning lots and lots in a short time.

Not only that, it’s about getting a feeling for the subject and to realise that there are things you don’t understand (avoiding the Dunning-Kruger effect). I agree that lots of the IR TK is not directly relevant to flying (although not so much as some people would claim), but it is still worthwhile because of the better understanding you get about flying generally.

I know Easyjet accepted a lot of partly trained RAF pilots a few years back when they were downsizing, which was a bright move as the RAF recruits very well.

That’s (partly) understandable because these guys went through a very hard selection process which fewer than one out of 100 candidates manages to pass. And all at the taxpayers expense and not at the expense of the airline!
But: The airforce(s) look for a different psycological profile than the airlines.Very determined solitary decision makers who strictly adhere to their rules and who respect hierarchy and who will follow orders without second thoughts. Not really the type of personality that you want in an civilian cockpit – at least they teach us different things in our CRM seminars.
But there are big national differences here. In some countries, military pilots can directly move to the flag carrier after their service is over, in others (Germany for example) ex-military pilots must join the queue at the end if they want to have a second career in civil aviation. And few of them succeed, because they are generally too old for their limited flying experiece (less than 100 hours per year for fighter pilots due to budget restrictions…) that often does not even count as multiengine time.

kwlf wrote:

I’ve also heard that agreeableness is a big factor. ‘Would I want to sit next to this person on a long flight on a regular basis?’ I suspect quite a lot of people fall down on that one.

I wish that was true – but I hear different things from my airline buddies. In the airlines it does not matter much because the same crew rarely flies together for more than two or three days every year. In my field – business aviation – that’s much more important.

I actually think most of the material in the ATPL theory was pretty relevant. It is however not always clearly written so it is sometimes difficult to understand it. And the other thing is that one cannot remember all things if they are not being used. For example I can never remember the runway distance, climb gradients, etc. requirements for commercial flights because I just never use them.

Of course there are always exceptions about the relevancy. I will never forget that an airplane needs a slide if its door is 183cm high (with the other possible answers being 180, 181 and 182) and that windshield wipers are required for airplanes above 5700kg which are both crucial knowledge for pilots (as if you wouldn’t read in the manual if your plane has wipers and sliders).

Airborne_Again wrote:

I agree that lots of the IR TK is not directly relevant to flying (although not so much as some people would claim), but it is still worthwhile because of the better understanding you get about flying generally.

I agree 100 percent with that. After having flown enough with people who only clicked their way through the electronic questionnaires without even trying to understand what all that is about, I really appreciate those who take things seriously. Especially commercial pilots / ATPL holders often have no other professional education than that. Middle school, followed by 6 months of classroom training (mostly spent twittering and whats-apping with their buddies – our ground instructors really go mad about that, but there’s nothing one can do because these guys pay for their “training” themselves) followed by three months of monkey-training on their notebooks, so they know long enough that the correct answer to question 297 is c) to be able to sit their exam. Apart from that, these guys know absolutely nothing. Zero. Basic understanding of physics? Basic understanding of the atmosphere, aerodynamics, structural mechanics? Nope. Why are there limitations when operating gear and flaps – no idea, maybe because the book says so?

Recently, one of our co-pilots (or first officer, which seems to be politically correcter for reasons I fail to understand) who has been flying bizjets for over ten years (and who failed his upgrade to captain for good reasons) told me during cruise flight that our left engine runs a little hotter than the right one because the wind is blowing from the right. For crying out loud! (And I guess he would be one of those who could get a 92% pass…)

Peter wrote:

You would be amazed how many instructors I have met who think the aircraft feels the wind…

I know. But who becomes an instructor these days? Every second unemployed 200-hour-frozen-ATPL holder. Back then when I did my instructor rating, 300 hours PIC time were required and 800 hours IFR time for an IR instructor. The theory exams were the most difficult ones in my career. No multiple choice questions, hand written answers only. Of 7 candidates that did the PPL instructor course with me only two passed first time. Not any more. Contrary to the usual way JAR and EASA use to do things (the most complicated common standard is adopted…) in case of the flight instructors the lowest common standard was chosen. An ATPL is all one needs. These fresh instructors have less than 50 hours solo time flown on two different types, not a single solo hour multi-engine, not one single hour solo in IMC, and they can teach instrument flying.

I’m really glad that my son has no intention to become a pilot because I would have a hard time to talk him out of that.

Easy has an integrated supply programme with CTC, and outside this supply chain will occasionally hire FO’s with unfrozen ATPLs, typically with over 1,000 hours jet time. To overcome the catch-22 of how do you get the multi crew jet time, you have carriers with pay to fly programmes. Journalists have never discussed the pay to fly programmes, although I don’t believe there have been safety issues with the carriers who provide them.

A separate thread might discuss why some of the major airline safety accidents in Europe had pilots from airline cadet programmes. U.S. Part 121 carriers, who still enjoy a safety margin over Europe, have predominantly hired FOs with over 1,500 hours gained principally in instructing, Part 135 or aerial work – today you can’t be a crew member on 121 without an ATPL. If I recall there are no cadet programmes in the U.S.

BMI does explicitly ask for an average 90% pass, but I had not heard any airline asking for 90% plus in all exams. Ryanair expects first time passes in the exams and the CPL and IR.

Hiring has picked up, but then quietens down in the summer as this is the high season and they don’t want to use up resources for line training.

But it does say a lot about the candidates with 89 percent or less: Even a monkey can do better and you really don’t want to trust tens of millions worth of aeroplane and hundreds of your passengers to a sub-monkey-performer. Drastically speaking.

Gosh, that’s blunt. Thanks. I’m less than a monkey…