I will say though that the question banks are now pretty useless for the IR. The questions I got on the tests bore no resemblance, and I was pretty surprised by this.
alioth wrote:
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.
(I’ve written this before but apparently it needs to be said again.)
As a professional teacher, I object to the allegation that the irrelevant information is there to trick you. In reality it is important that you know what information is relevant and what is not. Knowing that is part of the knowledge being tested and IMO more tests (multiple choice or not) should include unnecessary (I prefer that word) information. The best (and most realistic) approach is to present a complete situation with lots of facts and then ask several questions about it. The person taking the test would have to select the information needed for each question.
That said, I don’t like multiple choice tests much – I always prefer oral tests, when possible – but sometimes they’re necessary for some reason or another and I’ve constructed my share of them myself. The questions on a multiple choice test must be made so that no answers are obviously right or wrong and a consequence of that is that details become important.
Some of the tricks in the questions are naff ‘gimmicks’ only designed to catch people out. I would argue that in IO390’s example, there is a bit of merit as it is actually testing knowledge of the difference between compass and magnetic heading. Yes the question has to be read carefully but that is really a given.
This doesn’t excuse the remaining ‘gimmicked’ questions though, nor does it address the problem of testing people on a lot of irrelevant topics. This was a problem when I was doing these exams 10 years ago, and according to the instructors has been a problem for a long time before that. I don’t know how far back you would have to go to make even a simple majority of the stuff (at ATPL level anyway) seem relevant.
The tiny numbers of questions are compounded by almost every question containing trick options e.g.
a) alternator field current
b) generator field current
when a) is normally right in light GA, but both could be right, or
a) difference in altitude is 220ft
b) difference in altitude is 220m
just tests whether you are reading it fast or slow, because by the time you get to this stage you will know altitude is in feet.
This is really a matter for another more general “garbage theory” thread, but nobody flying for real is going to read the compass and apply any correction to it, because anybody flying with just a compass (for real, not in an exam) is already going to be working like a one armed bandit to keep it all together. Likewise nobody (in Europe) is going to distinguish between true and magnetic although that difference is important to understand.
Peter wrote:
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.
Peter wrote:
because by the time you get to this stage, you will know altitude is in feet.
I have had many questions where the right answer was in meters or yards, or km, or NM, or feet… you get the idea. It doesn’t have to be in feet. You have to show that you know the difference between the units and how to convert them.
There are no stupid questions. It is a normal part of the learning process to get frustrated when we make mistakes. What separates good students from others is the ability to look past the frustration and reflect on whether the is something new to learn here? No pain, no gain.
When I did mine (PPL)c1994 there was only 1 exam with 60 mulitple choice questions and I think it was a 75% pass mark.
I don’t remember any of the questions being irrelevant although I remember struggling with some of the VOR and ADF calculations and the difference between QDM and QDR.
I felt most of the IR questions in that exam were relevant, except for the electrical systems on a 747, grid navigation for flying North.of 60° latitude, and fuel calculations in tons of fuel needed for an A to B plus diversions in I think it was a 747 Also questions on Loran and other outdated Nav systems and the workings of cathode ray tube PFDs and MFDs.
Other than all this I can’t remember anything else that was irrelevant (oh maybe also OHMS law )But to be fair many doing these same exams were studying to become ATPL’s or CPL’s and sitting the same basic exam with only a few left out for the IR alone)
I bet many on here would not consider Ohms law as irrelevant, he @Peter:)
No pain, no gain.
That’s clearly the driving principle behind this system, but I thought this was about training pilots to fly planes. Maybe I need to go back to school and learn about the meaning of life 
This is all part of the crap whose end product is funnelling money to schools, while some 90% of the customers chuck it all in within a year or two, never having got much value for their 10-15k. They never knew that the school/club business model is to sell self fly hire (if possible with the FI surcharge) and is nothing to do with teaching someone to fly and enjoy it.
would not consider Ohms law as irrelevant, he @Peter
I would consider Ohms’ Law to be totally irrelevant – unless you want to again separate the real men from the sheep Those questions are in the EASA66 exams and, from those I have seen, there was just as much bollox there, with some of the electrical stuff completely wrong. But, again, that system hangs together. How? Well, simple… mechanics don’t need ohm’s law; they just change the “electrical bits” until the problem goes away (and the owner gets billed for all items changed 
).
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.
@Peter, agree here!
There is just one area of knowledge – PPL theory, the information in the books is often repeated again and again and again… I think a single book of ~500 pages should have been enough! And a single exam.
Peter wrote:
This is really a matter for another more general “garbage theory” thread, but nobody flying for real is going to read the compass and apply any correction to it, because anybody flying with just a compass (for real, not in an exam) is already going to be working like a one armed bandit to keep it all together. Likewise nobody (in Europe) is going to distinguish between true and magnetic although that difference is important to understand.
Of course, you distinguish between true and magnetic track “in Europe”. Maybe you don’t around Shoreham where the magnetic variation is only 0.5°, but I assure you that in the areas “in Europe” where the variation is >10° you most certainly do. At my home airfield, the variation is 6°E which is quite enough that you need to account for it.
You have an aircraft with a slaved compass system with a magnetometer placed in a magnetically undisturbed area of the aircraft so you don’t have to worry about deviation. (IIRC, a slaved compass system must have a deviation of at most 1°.) If you use a non-slaved DG/HSI, you must apply deviation when you set the compass card from the magnetic compass. A magnetic compass is allowed to have a deviation of 10° and I have flown in aircraft where the figure actually approaches the limit.
