Graham wrote:
3. Most people either go to sleep or get on with something else during long online training sessions.
I find the current approach in the better constructed ones, is that they are interactive – so while it doesnt make it impossible to go to sleep, its a little more difficult. If you include a few questions at the end, to test whether or not the person stayed awake, then it does tend to incentivise you to do so. Hopefully not the type of question that are designed to enable most people to fail because the questions are irrelevant, or the answers wrong – as I gather was the case from the CAA’s past attempts at this (see Peter’s explanation of the pre GASCo question bank).
I have just done the drone test, which I just managed to pass (as it would seem most do) without any revision before, but some of the questions in that are really dumb, and it really is infruriating to see questions designed just so that the answer is ambigious – really this is pointless and multiple guess has improved so much since those days this was the norm.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
it really is infruriating to see questions designed just so that the answer is ambigious – really this is pointless and multiple guess has improved so much since those days this was the norm.
Not with the CAA it hasn’t!
They are masters of:
‘which of these three correct answers is the most correct?’
‘which of these three plausible answer to an ambiguous question are we thinking of?’ and
‘which pointless piece of information can you establish in this contrived and unlikely situation?’
Time to venture back after weeks of following silently but I cannot bite my tongue any more. The amount of rubbish written here is unbelievable and culminates in the post by Jacko. He refers to a climate emergence yet he flies and most likely does more harm to the climate in a month than 20 cars driving to a course I am sure. The rest is equally unbelievable.
Sit back and read the rest. I hope non-aviators do not venture onto this forum. Move to the Channel Islands and take up sailing like I have. It’s more relaxing and the people involved are a much nicer group of enthusiasts.
172flyer, your post above does not contain any actual information. If there is a point you wish to make, I must be totally missing it.
Are you sure you are not yet another ATC or CAA guy who drops in purely to discredit this particular discussion? It’s always the same pattern…
I’d have thought the answers to the “why not online?” question are blindingly obvious
Yes, plus their attempt at the online exam (which on the current published numbers they still run, a bit) has been a disaster, with a load of bogus questions, seemingly from a PPL QB from the 1990s.
Timothy wrote:
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yet we have heard here that discussions are actively discouraged?As Balliol says, we have heard much on here that is inaccurate, but no amount of giving accurate information changes what is said.
Timothy – I must come back on this – please can you list exactly what has been said that is inaccurate, and why you think it is inaccurate. Presumaby if you know it is inaccurate, and we have already been told it is inaccurate, it would be a good thing to put the record straight and at least to allow the discussion to coalesce on some specific points of reference? I for one would far rather we agreed on the facts.
I think most of the time the discussion here could be solved by more transparency from the relevant groups. Yet it seems there has been need for freedom of information requests just to get basic stuff.
For those wishing to defend gasco at every level. What about that poster?
We have a number of evidence points for what seem like pretty heavy handed tactics we could presumably all mostly agree that do not help.
Peter, your paranoia is as ridiculous as some of your views. Do I need to constantly post on here to prove my employment credentials? If so then I have better things to do with my time which it would appear 3 or 4 on here do not. I did not realise there was a minimum post requirement.
Tell me 172flyer, what are your views on airspace infringements and the present CAA enforcement policy? What drives those views?
You can disagree all you like, but just saying that people are mad, ridiculous, paranoid etc. is not much of a discussion. Tell us what you think about the subject at hand.
@172flyer EuroGA is a forum where people discuss issues. If you come in, without any participation on other threads (which might indicate that you have an interest in, ahem, aviation in any form) and say
Time to venture back after weeks of following silently but I cannot bite my tongue any more. The amount of rubbish written here is unbelievable and culminates in the post by Jacko. He refers to a climate emergence yet he flies and most likely does more harm to the climate in a month than 20 cars driving to a course I am sure. The rest is equally unbelievable.
Sit back and read the rest. I hope non-aviators do not venture onto this forum. Move to the Channel Islands and take up sailing like I have. It’s more relaxing and the people involved are a much nicer group of enthusiasts.
then you can expect some people to wonder whether you are involved in, ahem, aviation 
This pattern of activity is invariably a CAA/NATS person. We’ve had a few…
Peter, your paranoia is as ridiculous as some of your views
No paranoia, old chum, merely observing and commenting on the blindingly obvious 
I also recommend a review of our Guidelines. Observing them has been shown to significantly extend a poster’s MTBF.
The amount of rubbish written here is unbelievable and culminates in the post by Jacko. He refers to a climate emergence yet he flies and most likely does more harm to the climate in a month than 20 cars driving to a course I am sure.
Dear @172flyer, you may be sure, but sure may be wrong. The Jackson family happens to be rather strongly carbon-negative, albeit by happenstance rather than by design.
As you would see if you could be bothered to look (on Google Earth, for instance), our farm includes enough commercial forestry to sequester the carbon emitted by more than 100 typical light GA aeroplanes (ref. MGR Cannell, Forestry, Vol 72, No. 3, 1999, tables 2 and 3).
Certainly, our annual rate of carbon sequestration comfortably exceeds the emissions from our modest fleet of fossil fuel powered tools, generators, aircraft, plant and vehicles (I think we’re down to about about 21 in total).
172flyer wrote:
Peter, your paranoia is as ridiculous as some of your views. Do I need to constantly post on here to prove my employment credentials? If so then I have better things to do with my time which it would appear 3 or 4 on here do not. I did not realise there was a minimum post requirement.
I would really like you to defend your comments.
I would really like to have your constructive contribution to the debate.
In reality exactly what you complain about, you are so far the most guilty.
I have enjoyed the CIs many times, getting there without burning even a litre of fossil fuel. You dont need to prove any employment credentials, but by all means tell me something about the anchorage around the back of Sark, that you would only know if you had sailed there – and of course I dont mean something that anyone could find on the internet.
