Six sittings to pass all the PPL exams
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not here to defend them but they didn't actually write the questions - that was contracted out to an aviation expert and agreed, a great deal of them left a lot to be desired (in the form they were last left, at least).
The contract was axed before these questions ever finished the QC process so we have no way of ever knowing whether those 'dodgy' questions would have made it to the final DB in their 'dodgy' form so it would be a tad unfair to criticise the author at this point. We are all capable of writing questions in a first draft which, on reflection at second or third pass, we would cringe at.
It was the quality control process I was referring to, something which is seriously lacking at present, to the point of non-existence.
There are questions currently in use which have been around for donkeys years which are either questionable in their own right or simply wrong.
The point I was originally making was one of a historical nature - there was going to be a potentially effective system but in good old Eurocrat fashion, they wasted the money elsewhere, thinking they could tap into a bottomless pit of cash for more.....does that sound like any other organisations? Oh, yes, they can tap into a bottomless pit of cash, it's called the Scheme of Charges.
A single EU charge was mentioned - look at the system and charges in some countries, e.g. Greece.
A computerised system with immediate reporting - a 10 working day period (as per the AMC) to take the exams - FIVE Euros per exam (SEVEN for resits!) - and YOU choose which exams you take NOT the regulator. Log on, pick your exams and off you go. Stand by for Greek economy comments - again, that is not the point, the issue is the charges passed on to the client. There are similar charges in many other EU countries.
Do FTO SME's have any say in the content of the questions, any more? I was under the impression that it was one FTO only - I stand to be corrrected.
The problem is not the SME (or SME's) in any case. It is the simple fact that the authority, whether that be the CAA, JAA or EASA, has never mandated a single reference source for each subject, on which the LO's are based and the questions drawn. That's where the agreement needs to be - one single composite reference source, be it Jepessen manuals, whatever....oh, no, now we have to get a bunch of EU member states to agree to something else!!!
Might be easier to get rid of EASA.
Have a good day.
The contract was axed before these questions ever finished the QC process so we have no way of ever knowing whether those 'dodgy' questions would have made it to the final DB in their 'dodgy' form so it would be a tad unfair to criticise the author at this point. We are all capable of writing questions in a first draft which, on reflection at second or third pass, we would cringe at.
It was the quality control process I was referring to, something which is seriously lacking at present, to the point of non-existence.
There are questions currently in use which have been around for donkeys years which are either questionable in their own right or simply wrong.
The point I was originally making was one of a historical nature - there was going to be a potentially effective system but in good old Eurocrat fashion, they wasted the money elsewhere, thinking they could tap into a bottomless pit of cash for more.....does that sound like any other organisations? Oh, yes, they can tap into a bottomless pit of cash, it's called the Scheme of Charges.
A single EU charge was mentioned - look at the system and charges in some countries, e.g. Greece.
A computerised system with immediate reporting - a 10 working day period (as per the AMC) to take the exams - FIVE Euros per exam (SEVEN for resits!) - and YOU choose which exams you take NOT the regulator. Log on, pick your exams and off you go. Stand by for Greek economy comments - again, that is not the point, the issue is the charges passed on to the client. There are similar charges in many other EU countries.
Do FTO SME's have any say in the content of the questions, any more? I was under the impression that it was one FTO only - I stand to be corrrected.
The problem is not the SME (or SME's) in any case. It is the simple fact that the authority, whether that be the CAA, JAA or EASA, has never mandated a single reference source for each subject, on which the LO's are based and the questions drawn. That's where the agreement needs to be - one single composite reference source, be it Jepessen manuals, whatever....oh, no, now we have to get a bunch of EU member states to agree to something else!!!
Might be easier to get rid of EASA.
Have a good day.
Last edited by 2close; 13th Feb 2013 at 06:29.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For PPLs we should just adopt the FAA system. One exam, 60 questions out of a published bank of 600 or so, all done on a computer system. I did my FAA PPL in 1996 and they had the computer stuff sorted out then. It is shocking that we still rely on pencils and manual marking in 2013!
Last edited by dobbin1; 18th Feb 2013 at 06:34.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 9 x 3 = 27 + 9 attempts at the Belgrano = 36 - all in 6 days.........
who has to go to Gatwick to re-sit all 9 exams was obviously not
at all ready to take any of them and should/would not have
been recomended by their school in the first place.
I think the purpose of taking exams is to try and pass them......anyone who has to go to Gatwick to re-sit all 9 exams was obviously not at all ready to take any of them and should/would not have been recommended by their school in the first place.
The new regulations specify that candidates are entitled to four attempts at each of the 9 exams. The same regulations specify that candidates must be recommended by their school before taking the exams and that all attempts must be completed within 6 sittings. The real problem arose when they decided to define a "sittings" as being a maximum of one day duration.
Not quite.
My view is that EASA introduced a number of totally unnecessary additional requirements, such as 9 exams, but their ideas were at least workable.
Then the UK CAA came along and came up with their unrealistic (one day) definition of a "sitting", which has made the situation unworkable.
My view is that EASA introduced a number of totally unnecessary additional requirements, such as 9 exams, but their ideas were at least workable.
Then the UK CAA came along and came up with their unrealistic (one day) definition of a "sitting", which has made the situation unworkable.
EASA have not insisted on 9 exams, they have simply required that an applicant for a PPL demonstrates a level of knowledge, appropriate to the privileges granted, in nine subject areas. There is no requirement relating to the number of examination papers at all and it would be fully compliant to have a single examination paper of 120 questions covering all of the subject areas, as stated in AMC1 FCL.215; FCL.235.
It is the UK CAA alone that has decided to have 9 separate papers, containing significantly more than the required number of questions and to define a 'sitting' as one day. My understanding is that the UK papers will comprise between 15 and 20 questions each. That being the case, the minimum possible number of questions would be 15x9=135 whereas the AMC states "the examinations should comprise a total of 120 questions".
It is the UK CAA alone that has decided to have 9 separate papers, containing significantly more than the required number of questions and to define a 'sitting' as one day. My understanding is that the UK papers will comprise between 15 and 20 questions each. That being the case, the minimum possible number of questions would be 15x9=135 whereas the AMC states "the examinations should comprise a total of 120 questions".
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Letter from Ray Elgy (head of licensing & training standards at the CAA) in Pilot magazine. A sitting will be defined as "a maximum of three consecutive days" and the number of questions will be 16 or 20 per paper x nine papers.
and the number of questions will be 16 or 20 per paper x nine papers.
AMC1 FCL.120; FCL.125 THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE EXAMINATION AND SKILL TEST FOR THE LAPL (a) Theoretical knowledge examination (1) The examinations should be in written form and should comprise a total of 120 multiple-choice questions covering all the subjects.
The EASA Aircrew Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012) was implemented by the UK CAA on the 17 September 2012, This required the CAA to carry out a complete revision to the existing PPL Aeroplane and Helicopter examination papers to comply with Part-FCL, Part-ARA and their AMCs and GM.
The CAA don't have to comply with an AMC, because it is just that, an Acceptable Means of Compliance, not the Only one. i.e., if one does what's in the AMC, one has demonstrated compliance with the rule and will not have to cope with further, local, opinion/suggestion/requirement but, just as Operators' compliance with operating rules, one can elect to do otherwise. In that case, what one does will have to be acceptable to (or approved by) the Authority and is subject to the (local) Regulator's interpretation of the requirements. As that means CAA in the UK, if they accept their own method of compliance, they comply.
The "120 questions" is part of the AMC, not the Regulation, which makes no stipulation as to the number of questions. FCL.120 does mention nine subjects to be examined, however, so perhaps it is not unreasonable for the CAA to set nine separate papers.
The "120 questions" is part of the AMC, not the Regulation, which makes no stipulation as to the number of questions. FCL.120 does mention nine subjects to be examined, however, so perhaps it is not unreasonable for the CAA to set nine separate papers.
Last edited by Sepp; 24th Feb 2013 at 12:15.
The CAA don't have to comply with an AMC, because it is just that, an Acceptable Means of Compliance, not the Only one.
Last edited by Whopity; 24th Feb 2013 at 13:29.
I am more than happy to bow to others' superior knowledge of the subject, but as the requirement when drawing up an alternative means of compliance is to demonstrate no less than equivalent safety to that present in the published AMC, rather than to match it exactly, it would appear that the CAA could quite happily require 1500 questions if they chose but could not require 119. This requirement is then binding solely on CAA, and no other Regulator has to comply with it - indeed, should another Regulator wish to adopt the same stance, they would have to draw up their own version of it; they could not simply say "we'll do what the CAA does". The attendant disparity between the implementation chosen by the various Regulators is completely within the requirements of the Basic Regulation, provided that each demonstrates the required equivalent safety.
I grant you, the whole system is one gigantic cock-up that offers no guarantee of EU-wide standardisation in any area EASA has chosen to oversee. Fortunately, my interest is now academic and I don't have to administer/apply/cope with any of this or related Euro-crap.
I grant you, the whole system is one gigantic cock-up that offers no guarantee of EU-wide standardisation in any area EASA has chosen to oversee. Fortunately, my interest is now academic and I don't have to administer/apply/cope with any of this or related Euro-crap.
Last edited by Sepp; 24th Feb 2013 at 13:54.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMC1 FCL.120; FCL.125 THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE EXAMINATION AND SKILL TEST FOR THE LAPL (a) Theoretical knowledge examination (1) The examinations should be in written form and should comprise a total of 120 multiple-choice questions covering all the subjects.
But the CAA does (or did) - I cannot find the references where I have seen it
but, from memory:
"May" = Complete choice to follow, or not follow, a course of action.
"Should" = Course of action recomended, but not mandatory.
"Must" = Course of action must be followed - No exceptions.
Therefore, to me, the CAA seems to be fully complying with Part-FCL
As you said should is recommended but not mandatory however; its establishes a recommended maximum and if you exceed that, you are being more stringent than the regulation intended. The whole point of this is to establish a level playing field and stop individual States setting their own standards. Where did the original requirement come from? The FAA! so their model was probably what the originators had in mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another missed opportunity.
Pretty well every one I know feels that one paper of 120 questions covering all PPL subjects would be the way to go.
Flight training in the UK competes with no user fees flight training in the states and VAT fee flight training in sunnier southern Europe.
Flight training also competes with other leisure activities golf, fishing , water skiing etc
This is yet another change which makes the cost of obtaining a license in the UK more expensive and less convenient.
Will the never ending regulatory strangulation ever cease?
Pretty well every one I know feels that one paper of 120 questions covering all PPL subjects would be the way to go.
Flight training in the UK competes with no user fees flight training in the states and VAT fee flight training in sunnier southern Europe.
Flight training also competes with other leisure activities golf, fishing , water skiing etc
This is yet another change which makes the cost of obtaining a license in the UK more expensive and less convenient.
Will the never ending regulatory strangulation ever cease?
Whopity,
You appear to be taking a rather one-sided approach to this.
If individual authorities are permitted to be less stringent, but not more stringent than the basic regulation, then the whole thing becomes a "race to the bottom".
If individual authorities are permitted to be more stringent, but not less stringent than the basic regulation, then the whole thing becomes a "race to the top".
If the overall objective is to ensure flight safety, then a race to the top would be the more productive of the two approaches......but it does risk driving training providers into financial ruin.
should is recommended but not mandatory however; its establishes a recommended maximum and if you exceed that, you are being more stringent than the regulation intended. The whole point of this is to establish a level playing field and stop individual States setting their own standards.
they cannot be more stringent than the basic regulation
If individual authorities are permitted to be less stringent, but not more stringent than the basic regulation, then the whole thing becomes a "race to the bottom".
If individual authorities are permitted to be more stringent, but not less stringent than the basic regulation, then the whole thing becomes a "race to the top".
If the overall objective is to ensure flight safety, then a race to the top would be the more productive of the two approaches......but it does risk driving training providers into financial ruin.
Last edited by keith williams; 24th Feb 2013 at 18:51.