Looking to finish PPL, a bit stuck

Peter wrote:

Most of the theory is nonsense.

I used the same “techniques” on the PPL, drivers license, bus licence (Yea, I can drive small buses ) and other exams. PPL theory isn’t nonsense. Some of it may be irrelevant and perhaps misplaced and way out of context. RT certainly is, at least here in Norway. Lots of (well, “nonsense”) about frequencies, oscillators, batteries and electromagnetic waves. Virtually nothing about what a (Norwegian) pilot has to know when flying here: Speaking and understanding “English aviation speak” with the ATC

One could say that the same goes for navigation. At least for ULs we have stopped all the “nonsense” there. You may learn the old way if you want (in practice), but the requirement is to know “some way” to navigate (in practice). The “other way” is invariable SkyDemon (which is rather funny actually considering these competitions we have are old school navigation ) This is reflected in the theory also. RT not so much. RT is the domain of the CAA, and the same courses and exams exists for anyone wanting to talk on the aviation frequencies. So utterly out of context is the requirement

You can do the exams in Sweden, in English. Must be done on site with an examiner.
There are some different study materials. Not sure if what you have read so far will work but you can always try.
However you will need to go through a DTO. You can send me a PM if you wish to know more.

Peter wrote:

This is a PPL, not a PhD Most of the theory is nonsense.

People with pilots’s licenses (including you) have many times asked questions here on EuroGA about things that are included in the theory for the license/rating they have, so maybe it is not so much nonsense as you might think?

La_Baguette wrote:

You mean this?

I meant this here, directly from Austro Control. Follow link, download questions and practice those. You’ll be fine. If you want more, apparently aviationexam.com is a good resource – I did not try them.

Regarding the discussion on whether this strategy is silly or not and on whether the PPL theory is nonsense or not, I think that is besides the point. For the record, I don’t think the theory is nonsense. I enjoyed reading and learning most of it and I enjoy learning more every day. The point is that the PPL exam does not necessarily test whether you have learned and understood the subject matter. At least not for all subjects. Navigation, performance and planning, human performance were quite good. But I don’t know what a quasi-optical wave is supposed to mean (nor does Google BTW). I do know the people making questions used for this particular exam mean a space wave. Directly from the official example set linked above:

89 Quasi-optical waves travel… (1,00 P.)
 along the surface of the earth.
 through the air directly from the transmitter to the receiver.
 through the air and are influenced (e.g. reflected) by the ionosphere.
 along the surface of the earth, but are absorbed by the sea.

Without knowing that, and with this terminology not being used in my theory books, I would fail this question.

Or consider this: I could bring my air law book to the exam with me and I would still draw a blank. You need to know this sort of question will be asked to be able to prepare for it.

61 What information is provided in the part “AD” of the AIP? (1,00 P.)
 Warnings for aviation, ATS airspaces and routes, restricted and dangerous airspaces.
 Table of content, classification of airfields with corresponding maps, approach charts, taxi charts
 Map icons, list of radio nav aids, time for sunrise and sunset, airport fees, air traffic control fees
 Access restrictions for airfields, passenger controls, requirements for pilots, license samples
and validity periods

I’m 45. As many of you, I underwent my fair share of testing and obtaining degrees and licences for whatnot. But as argued before, I think the PPL exam is rather unique in my experience so far in that I could study for an unlimited amount of time (theory book contents only) and take my books to the exam, and I think I still would not have gotten the questions above right. I prefer to think of the MCQ rehearsal strategy as efficient rather than silly

Airborne_Again wrote:

so maybe it is not so much nonsense as you might think?

I think perhaps a point is that the obvious lack of focus in the PPL theory on the stuff that a PPL pilot actually needs to know makes it’s “nonsensical” in a way. Each subject individually makes sense isolated, but the contents of the subjects are largely irrelevant when the aim is to fly a light aircraft today. Instead of making sense of it in a broad sense, you might as well become a monkey and learn it the monkey way. IMO that is still stupid, since each subject isn’t exactly rocket science, and can be learned much more efficiently using tried and known techniques used just about everywhere else.

Going back to the “university/real” thread. The single most important thing to learn is to study efficiently. If you don’t, you either drop out, or hate the whole thing. Unless you are Rain Man of course

Tango wrote:

I think the PPL exam is rather unique in my experience so far in that I could study for an unlimited amount of time (theory book contents only) and take my books to the exam, and I think I still would not have gotten the questions above right

That’s a point perhaps, but still. I mean “AD” ? If you have opened the AIP once, this is as easy as it gets. The problem is that this is the sort of thing that is “good to know/remember” after you have gotten the PPL and actually fly around. What is important to know is that the “AD” only covers a fraction of the available airfields a PPL pilot actually is likely to use The rest (but by now means all) are found in Sky Demon Yet another example of misplaced and out of context “knowledge”. This also shows another, I would say (unbelievable) low IQ approach, of aviation in general. Namely the over-use of acronyms. Why call it AD when AD stands for Aerodromes? What genius got the idea that:

1. we need an acronym here in the first place
2. AD is a good acronym for Aerodrome

What’s the idea with acronyms? Do people feel special once there’s an acronym in place? Again, monkey business

I took my PPL theory many years ago and also did IR theory twice (passed both times but ran out of time for the practical due to a medical intervention.)
I too would struggle with the above 2 questions
If we try to break it down, a quasi optical wave would perhaps be a line of sight wave such as a VHF signal , therefore to my thinking the answer is neither a. or d. Of the other 2 one has to ask oneself are VHF waves, normally reflected by the ionosphere? IMO the answer would likely be b.
In the second question
I would suggest that a. is en route information
c; I don’t recall the AD section of the AIP having airport fees or ATC fees or sunrise sunset charts
d. I don’t recall any licence samples
So my guess would be answer b.
I may be wrong on both of these and if I was doing the theory exam I would go through a QCM question bank alongside the theory book so that I could check these things out.
To paraphrase a US politician “there are things we don’t know that we don’t know and there are things that we know we don’t know” theory exam study is to try to give us the 2nd of these. IMO

gallois wrote:

So my guess would be answer b.

I would also answer b on both questions.

Actually both questions test for knowledge relevant in practice for the PPL holder. But I have an issue with the term “quasi-optical” – it does not appear in the PPL syllabus so it should not be used. (Nor indeed does it appear in the ATPL or IR syllabi!) What does appear in the PPL syllabus is “Propagation with the frequency bands”. The question should have been phrased “Radio waves in the VHF frequency band travel…”

Was that particular question from Austro Control?

Airborne_Again wrote:

Was that particular question from Austro Control?

Yes, verbatim quote from the sample questions AC publishes on their website (see link in earlier post). That is precisely the issue I have with “just study the books” – a “quasi-optical wave” is a made up term. Only by practicing MCQs (the specific MCQs that AC uses) I can understand they actually mean a “space wave” and answer the question (should indeed be answer b for both questions)

For the other question, I know what AD means – that’s not the problem. The issue is my theory book does not list what information is in what parts of the AIP. Sure it is relevant knowledge. But you can’t start at the Big Bang and study everything that looks related to aviation. As there is no formal syllabus, the advice I was given was to just rehearse the MCQs until I was good enough at it.