INRAT advice

[charrois]

Hi everyone.

I'm preparing to write my INRAT and am looking for a bit of advice.

I'm the sort of person who does well in things when I understand why or how they work, but is downright terrible when it comes to straight memorization. Unfortunately, I'm finding a lot of concepts for the INRAT come down to memorization, so preparation is taking longer than I'd suspected.

I'd heard that some things (like alternate minima) might be provided during the test in an appendix. Does anyone know if this is true? And if so, what other bits of information might you recall seeing there that I may not have to commit to memory?

I realize the content and format of the INRAT may change at any time, but I'm hoping to tap the collective wisdom here and spend my time learning the things I really do need to know, versus the info I can just look up during the course of writing the test.

Any help you may be able to give on this, or advice in general, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Dan

[rapid602]

Well I just wrote that exam about two years ago. I was away from aviation for a long time and had let my Instrument Rating Lapse so I had to write the exam again. Here is what I did.

I found a software program www.canadapilot.com and bought the inrat study course.
It was like $39 or $40 and the best $$$$$ that I ever spent in aviation. It has the material and under it and explanation or a question. Everything that you need there is in that course it was great. I still go on it every month or so and review.

Then when I got good with it, I went and took and Aero Course weekend study course.
I passed with a 88%. The Aero Course was GREAT and www.canadapilot.com was EVEN BETTER.

Just my thoughts on what I did and I wish you well.

[charrois]

Hi Rapid602!

I've been using the INRAT study course from www.canadapilot.com on the iPad, and couldn't agree with you more - it seems very comprehensive, and it's definitely getting me on track with what I expect I'll need to know. It's one of the resources I've been using that has shown me just how much memorization there is

Thanks for the encouragement!

Dan

[Colonel Sanders]

terrible when it comes to straight memorization

That's not good. There is an awful lot of stuff in aviation that
you simply have to memorize.

For example, you have just taken off in a piston twin and
entered cloud at 200 feet and an engine quits.

What are you going to do now?

[Blakey]

terrible when it comes to straight memorization

That's not good. There is an awful lot of stuff in aviation that
you simply have to memorize.

For example, you have just taken off in a piston twin and
entered cloud at 200 feet and an engine quits.

What are you going to do now?

How long was the runway I just departed from, how much of it remained when I entered cloud and what were the conditions below the cloud? If I departed, during daylight with good vis below cloud, from the button of 04R in Edwards AFB, my answer is a bit different than if I just departed from 06 in Attawapiskat at min vis in snow.

[Colonel Sanders]

A TC written exam would NEVER have that kind of real-world
information in it. Instead, it would read like this:

Blah, blah, blah. Which of the following is NOT the most correct answer?
a) blah
b) more blah
c) even more blah
d) all of the above

I have a theory about why TC written exams are designed to test your
english language comprehension skills (I shudder to think at some poor
foreign student trying to pass one of these monstrosities. English is
our mother tongue, and we can't understand them).

I think, decades ago, an English professor got hired by the DOT to make
up all the written exams. No pilot could ever compose such insane exams.

Unfortunately one of the pilots in his office got his wife pregnant at a drunken
BBQ - pilots are good for some things, after all - and in a rage, the English
professor took his revenge on pilots by making truly incomprehensible exams
for anyone who didn't major in English in University.

The English professor, of course, is long since retired, but the pilots at TC
are afraid to muck with the written tests, which they can't understand either,
so his revenge is perpetrated on future generations of pilots as well.

Heck, his cuckolded offspring may very well be reading this! Is your father
an English prof that worked at TC and glared at you when you took up flying
like your biological father?

PS When was the last time you heard the word "cuckolded" used
correctly in an internet posting? You may laugh, but if you can
correctly use the word "cuckolded", you might be able to read an AD.

You'd be surprised at who can't.

[rapid602]

Have to agree with the Colonel on that one. The instrument exam I wrote was certainly and ENGLISH EXAM. When I was doing my exam, a buddy of mine was studying at the same time.
He would call me everyday or every other day with a question. Read me what he wanted and the first words out of my mouth were.

"What is the question asking" .....just change 1 word and it changes the question. So no matter how many times you see that question it may be similar, BUT READ IT !!! ... I would go back and look at some of my answers doing sample exams and slap myself for not reading the question.

It is sad to think that Transport Canada cares more about your reading skills that your aviation knowledge.

Good luck to those writing the Inrat Exam.

[charrois]

It sounds as though I'm not the only one who has "issues" with TC exams.

With regards to memorization vs. understanding, here's my take on things.

For issues involving engine failure, low altitude stalls, etc., neither memorization nor understanding are enough - a pilot's actions have to be reflexive. If I were to have an engine failure, I wouldn't even think about my response, let alone start to recall memorized steps. I've rehearsed scenarios enough that the "essential things" to do right away would be done automatically, without thinking. Then, if time permits, I may go through various memorized checklists, or if there is loads of time, try and troubleshoot. But getting on the ground safely trumps all of that, and if it's an engine failure shortly after takeoff, it may be all over within a few seconds.

Certain things, like GUMPS checks, are appropriate for memorization. You have a bit of time to recall what you need to do, but you don't want to be pulling out checklists on short final. Obviously, a lot falls into this category - airspace regulations, calls that need to be done, etc.

But there are also a lot of things while flying that should not call for rote memorization, but rather a thorough understanding of how things work. When things start acting up, they don't necessarily adhere to a script, and there's not always a "checklist for that".

Sometimes, when I read of accident reports - often especially those involving large carriers - I worry that some pilots start to act as automatons following checklists and memorized procedures to the exclusion of being able to critically think of how best to deal with the specific problem they are facing. Even basic issues like plugged pitot tubes have ended in tragedy, and I think in many cases, that stems from the crew starting to lose their understanding of how aircraft systems interact.

Of course, there is a time and place for everything - some things need to be reflexive, some need to be memorized, some need to be well understood, and some can merely be referenced when needed.

When writing my PSTAR, I had issue with some of the questions based on nothing but recall. For example, I remember a question that needed me to specify how many feet to stay behind a jet of such and such a weight to avoid jet blast. Others may disagree, but I find such a question absolutely pointless, verging on ridiculous. I have no good way of judging another aircraft's weight, nor do I have a measuring tape handy to ensure I stay the appropriate number of feet behind it. In practice, when I find myself in such a situation, I stay "well enough away". It's important for pilot candidates to recognize the dangers that jet blast may pose even significantly behind an aircraft, but memorizing a specific number of feet is pointless on any number of levels. Of course, it makes it easy for the people creating the questions for a test, but doesn't do anything to make people better pilots.

Not being an instrument rated pilot yet, I don't have a sense of the details that in practice will end up memorized, and which details will be looked up. I suspect a lot of pilots look up details like alternate minima when doing their flight planning... when they have a nice handy CAP GEN sitting next to them... especially those pilots who (like probably most of us) don't often fly when the weather is so bad that it's anywhere near to marginal.

In any event, back to the topic of my original posting... does anyone recall from writing their INRAT which details they were provided in the appendix of their test that didn't need to be memorized? Of course, knowing how to apply information is absolutely important - memorizing details that may be available in a table right in front of you, maybe not so much. I'm just trying to figure out how to best prepare myself.

Thanks for the lively discussion

Dan

[charrois]

I thought I'd make a followup reply to my original posting in case anyone searches for a response to my question in the future.

I wrote my INRAT on Wednesday. It turns out that, in my case at least, they did provide alternate weather minima (pages 24 and 25 from the CAPGEN) as well as the altitude correction chart from page 29 (as well as of course the appropriate approach charts, GFAs, etc., as necessary to solve the questions). But that's it - no other references. All other information does have to be recalled.

With all that said, in my case anyway, it turned out to be a non-issue... I did really well. So it's off to get some real airplane instrument time..

Dan

[rapid602]

Dan is being very modest here everyone.

I sent him a PM the other day to ask how he did. He replied that he got 94% So CONGRATULATIONS. When I got my mark on my INRAT ... They told me I did very good, as did the guy who did my Multi IFR Ride. The Transport Canada Office said they rarely see and 80 or above and my Flight Test Examiner said the same thing.

94% is something to be very proud of Dan..... once again Congratulations.

Fly Safe

[Colonel Sanders]

Over 90% on the INRAT is very impressive! Congratulations!

PS Transport will be contacting you shortly about a job doing
written exams! j/k

[Big Pistons Forever]

First of congratulations on your 94 %. However by getting such a high mark you have exhibited excessive levels of comprehension. This will be a signal to TC to rewrite the exam to eliminate any further danger of candidates doing so well......

[Colonel Sanders]

TC has this neat "GA Services Online" website ...
I clicked on "My File" and got:

PRMN 003 02 1 80.0%
INRAT 011 03 2 87.8%
AIRAT 001 02 2 89.0%
AIRAT 001 01 1 84.8%
SAMRA 005 03 1 78.5%
SARON 004 04 1 90.0%
INRAT 004 02 1 94.0%
FIREN 007 02 1 80.0%
TIRAT 007 01 1 90.7%
CPAER 008 01 1 80.0%

I have no idea what it means.