Bathman wrote:
Just to clarify its a “paper”not an ”exam”
What’s the difference? (Asking as a non-native speaker.)
The JAA and then EASA had the FAA system in mind when they proposed the exam system.. but then, inexplicably, decided to do something completely different…
The FAA system has a single written exam for each certificate and the IR, and an extensive oral exam as part of each checkride.
There is a lot of cross over between the separate papers, which is slightly annoying. You regularly see the same question, or variations of, on the difference “subjects”. Also some of the questions have incorrect answer choices, IE you can’t actually select a correct answer. I came across the following question in my PPL navigation exam recently, word for word:
What is the magnetic heading of an aircraft if it is heading 120 degrees True, the variation is 10 degrees east and a compass deviation of plus 5 (degrees east)?
110 degrees
130 degrees
125 degrees
115 degrees
If the true heading is 120, 10 degrees east variation means minus 10, then minus another 5 for the east compass deviation (no idea why it says “plus” in the question). That gives 105 degrees which isn’t one of the selectable answers.
So, what if you just ignore the part which says “(degrees east)” and add 5, giving 115? Well if you select that answer, it marks it as the incorrect answer.
The first Nav paper I failed and it included the above question and another that was almost identical, and I failed both of those questions, which put me one answer below the pass mark. Thanks to the CAA’s hopeless new online exam system you can’t find out which answer is the correct one, and the flying school can’t find out either.
I retook the exam and the same question came up again, and I failed that question but passed all the others (didn’t properly RTFQ on the first go!). On the bright side I’ve now finished all my exams and can finish the flying as quickly as possible, but I’ve had to spend lots of time learning information that is not relevant to flying in order to pass the exams, and so I’m now going back over training materials to actually try and learn useful stuff.
IO390 wrote:
What is the magnetic heading of an aircraft if it is heading 120 degrees True, the variation is 10 degrees east and a compass deviation of plus 5 (degrees east)?110 degrees
130 degrees
125 degrees
115 degreesIf the true heading is 120, 10 degrees east variation means minus 10, then minus another 5 for the east compass deviation (no idea why it says “plus” in the question). That gives 105 degrees which isn’t one of the selectable answers.
So, what if you just ignore the part which says “(degrees east)” and add 5, giving 115? Well if you select that answer, it marks it as the incorrect answer.
The question is correctly written and the answer is 110°. You’re computing the compass heading, not the magnetic heading.
The reason it says “plus” is that an alternative way of expressing deviation and variation is with a positive value for east and a negative value for west.
@Airborne_Again
Good point and we’ll spotted, and I now look like an idiot. It’s another case of RTFQ (read the f*** question) then.
I showed the question to two instructors and a couple of pilots and all of them came up with 105.
You have to read the questions incredibly closely and precisely and understand they often include irrelevant information in order to tri…I mean test you actually think through the question. It’s of course very artificial, no one would even introduce the compass deviation card if they were working out magnetic heading from true, and the inclusion of this irrelevant bit of information in the question is in order to trick you.
You have to think in the mind set of the question setter. While this makes a fun exercise for people writing these exams, I don’t think it necessarily makes for a good exam paper. What really surprises me about this one is they didn’t include the (wrong) answer of 105, because some people when they calculate 105 will go back and read the question again and discover the “trick”, and then select the correct answer, which they wouldn’t if 105 was listed as a possible answer.
Last year I did my PPL conversion and just passed the three required theory tests for the IR conversion. The IR tests (very challenging) were on a completely different level from the PPL (quite straightforward IMO). I did find the preparation for both air law tests quite helpful given the differences from the US, though a lot of the material on the IR version was just useless trivia.
Honestly I never thought I’d praise the FAA until moving to Europe. I’ll credit EASA for trying to make steps toward pragmatism, but the current testing regime is clearly way too focused on crap that doesn’t matter and leaves out important bits. There’s good reason to fear an FAA oral/checkride. Both my PPL and IR took 7-8 hrs each, and the IR was one of the most challenging experiences of my life. But it’s a very good system for assessing pilot skill.
The other thing I’ve noticed is the total elapsed time required to do my two conversions. I went from zero to PPL in the US in 7 months, and got my IR in just under 5. You can sign up to take the written test and do so a few days later, and receive an instant printout of the result to take to the checkride. For my EASA PPL it took me 2 months from the moment I got the instructor sign off to sit the exams, then another three weeks to get the results. After the skill test I waited 6 weeks for my license, which you get immediately in the US. I waited two months for my night rating after sending in the paperwork. I signed up for my IR tests in early March, sat them in mid April, and still don’t have my official paper.
I actually find these delays to be dangerous, because the worst possible thing you can do to a newly minted pilot is make them wait a long time to use their new license or privilege. By the time I finally get those IR letters on my EASA license I’ll have spent more time on conversion than I did getting the original licenses in the US! And all this just to prove I can do something I’ve already proven in another ICAO country. I actually don’t mind the testing if the process were not so frustratingly long.
The Euro IR theory is indeed ~90% irrelevant crap. I wrote about it here and the simple strategies for “luck optimisation” are hilarious. Same crap as the PPL theory, which I have also seen recently.
I doubt this stuff has ever been anything other than crap. I will never change – too many old farts in that business, who don’t fly and often never have, and even those who do fly have never flown “around Europe”.
But getting back to the subject, why have so few questions? It doesn’t test knowledge. All it does is create fear that you have not revised enough. It turns the exam into an exercise in luck, and the fewer questions there are the easier it is to fail due to bad luck (or due to bogus questions, like in the above IO390 example). Why not do it properly and have just 1 question? Then you have “total fear”, everybody will do “total revision” to master the whole syllabus perfectly, and you turn out 100% perfect pilots.
If you want to test knowledge you have say 50 questions.
And the 9 PPL exams is stupid anyway. There are not 9 distinct areas of knowledge. When I did mine, c. 2000, there were 6 exams.
I agree it makes no sense. I was shocked to see only 7 questions on the human performance test! But having taken many professional certification tests I am quite sure these test creators are just evil sadists. Which is why having real experienced pilots give oral exams makes more sense.
There is one exception to this, which was the IR flight planning test. With 22 fairly complicated questions and many ways to screw up, I found the time too short to really take as much care as I wanted. And I’m generally a pretty quick test taker.
I guess the general idea of many small tests is you really have to know every subject, as there’s no way to just let subject areas you know well cover over your weak spots.
Well, the IR nav exam had zero value because the routes were planned from the Jepp Enroute LO chart and would not validate via Eurocontrol, which has been around since, what, 1995? I did that exam in 2011. The instructors, at PAT at EGHH, didn’t know anything about this “little problem”. Training value = 0.
So, how does this hang together? Well, it hangs together because 99.3% of those who take it never have to plan a real IFR flight, before or after they get a RHS job.
Same way as the PPL ground school hangs together. Most people chuck it all in in a year or two. So it doesn’t matter really.
