I did my ATPLs last summer, and the general chatter then was that Flybe wanted an average of 90% and you were allowed 1 fail.
I’m pleased to say I meet their criteria, however with my 58th birthday not far away on the horizon I suspect I would be of limited interest to them 
This wasn’t my motivation, I was doing it before doing an FI rating, Propilot convinced me that if I was doing the CPL’s I might as well do ATPL……which is probably right.
Seriously, some of the “greatest” pilots in history did not belong in the “above 90% non-monkey” class initially. They got there eventually. But, they were damn good pilots.
I’ve often noticed this. Some well known fighter pilots nearly flunked initial training. Some of the big name test pilots e.g. Neil Armstrong did OK, but were far from top of the class.
kwlf wrote:
Some well known fighter pilots nearly flunked initial training
Just of curiosity, who might that be? If you think of WWII, there were not much training to “flunk” as flunking in those days meant augering due to lack of proper training.
Some well known fighter pilots nearly flunked initial training. Some of the big name test pilots e.g. Neil Armstrong did OK, but were far from top of the class.
This sounds to me a bit like the “Einstein almost dropped out of school because he was poor at mathematics” often quoted by underperforming students. Apart from being not true, it does not matter the least now, 100 years later. Times have changed and selection criteria are different now. Every ATPL student knows what is necessary to get invited for an airline interview. Same as Armstrong knew what was required from him so that he could successfully apply as an astronaut.
I think it’s for lack of better criteria. Do we complain there are entry requirements for medical studies based on marks achieved during high school? It’s just one of the criteria. At least you filter out the guys that don’t have certain mental capabilities.
Can I point out too that in order to pass any (commercial) license exam you actually require a pass mark of 100% anyway. At least in Australia. What ever questions you failed on during the first pass, you will be asked about during the ground portion of the CPL flight test. This is based on a knowledge deficiency report generated with the theory exam result.
At least in Australia. What ever questions you failed on during the first pass, you will be asked about during the ground portion of the CPL flight test. This is based on a knowledge deficiency report generated with the theory exam result.
I like that system, but it is not like that in Europe / EASA land. The examiner who does the flight test with you knows absolutely nothing about your written test. Apart from the fact that you passed otherwise you could not take the flight test.
So if someone really only studies his CPL or ATPL theory with the aim of getting a 76% minimal pass, he will carry a 24% knowledge deficit throughout his professional life. Whether he would ever have needed those 24% is a different question (Like those typical MET questions: “What is the usual wind direction during the monsoon season in Mumbai?” – what do I care, it’s going to be on the ATIS and I don’t want to fly there anyway )
I think it is very hard to get over 90% in all the exams, because some of them have only about 25 questions. For example on HP&L I was able to get anywhere from 60% to 100% on the mock tests, no matter how many of them I did. In the end I did the entire QB on that one several times! Obviously it can be done but you need to put in a lot of work to minimise the chances of a “bad day”.
I know people take the p1ss out of “impossible to fail” IFR Comms, but there are plenty of trick questions in there which can confuse anybody who actually flies in the European IFR system. It is easy to over-think the questions and get a few wrong.
The young ATPL students, who seem to be by far the majority, live sleep and eat the stuff and they drive each other, and by doing the FTO homework as a “community job” they minimise the amount of time spent on that. Whereas when I was at GTS I found the homework really time consuming because it bore almost no relation to the JAA QB and it was very dry. Doing e.g. Met or Air Law in it was like reading the retail price index statistics. The FTO “community” sidesteps that by doing it around a big table at the hotel.
The monsoon season wind direction stuff is just a load of crap which nobody is going to use. It pre-dates the internet (and wx availability) by many years, but I am sure airline pilots never did their own flight planning ever. Bizjet pilots usually have to do the whole lot, but airline pilots?
The USA has got it right, by making a CPL a basic CPL which can be used for anything starting with crop spraying, the IR a basic IR which can be used with a PPL, and all the stuff above that goes into the Type Rating where it clearly belongs. Europe is just too elitist for that… I wonder why? It isn’t the high level of ex military personnel in the national CAAs, because the FAA has that too.
I think it’s for lack of better criteria. Do we complain there are entry requirements for medical studies based on marks achieved during high school? It’s just one of the criteria. At least you filter out the guys that don’t have certain mental capabilities.
Yes, we do. Medical studies need reasonably bright sloggers, not academic superstars. Outside of the university hospitals a lot of the brighter doctors are likely to get bored, and on a day to day basis people skills are generally more important. Uber-competitive high achievers don’t always work well in teams either.
The USA has got it right, by making a CPL a basic CPL which can be used for anything starting with crop spraying, the IR a basic IR which can be used with a PPL, and all the stuff above that goes into the Type Rating where it clearly belongs.
It used to be very similar in the old national regulations in Germany before JAR-FCL. With enough experience (1200 hours or so, can’t remember now) you could even fly a part 25 aircraft up to 20 tons on a CPL. The ATPL was for Boeing 737 and above and the Long-Range endorsment was only required for captains of flights that crossed 4 time zones or more. Since JAR-FCL you need an ATPL to freelance right-seat on a KingAir (not legally, but everybody else has an ATPL, so why should anybody employ a CPL holder…) and an 90% pass to buy yourself into the pay-to-fly scheme of some low-cost carrier that I would not even use as a passenger.
