keep failed the ppl school qualifying writtem Exam [PASSED]

[altiplano]

Why are you "studying the books? Are you studying so you can pass some tests, and then forget most of it? Or are you studying, because you want to learn it, and once learned, you're willing to demonstrate your new knowledge by taking an exam? There's a big difference!

Read to learn, because it interests you, and demonstrating the outcome of your learning should be much easier than demonstrating that you studied something that you did not care about!

If you are some kid who had a Boner for Boeing from the early years maybe this shit interests you but if you are like the rest of us you just want to get through the shit and so do what you have to and jump through the hoops TC requires in the PPL/CPL because 9 times out of 9.1 times it's useless and who gives a crap. Study the shit they want you to know/cheat/squeak/do what it takes an get through it because it's all irrelevant bullshit when you grow up.

[Beefitarian]

is English your second language?

Those of us, who's first language is English, can
often barely pass the TC written exams, which
are often as much as test of reading comprehension
as they are of aviation knowledge.

You know what though? It's not or I would take every one I possibly could as a hobby.

They are more of a game, where you have to guess what some dink with a university degree in English has written, to try and create the most poetic, potentially correct answer.

[Shiny Side Up]

If you are some kid who had a Boner for Boeing from the early years maybe this shit interests you but if you are like the rest of us you just want to get through the shit and so do what you have to and jump through the hoops TC requires in the PPL/CPL because 9 times out of 9.1 times it's useless and who gives a crap. Study the shit they want you to know/cheat/squeak/do what it takes an get through it because it's all irrelevant bullshit when you grow up.

Hardly. While I dislike the form the test takes, all of the source material for the written is very useful and applicable on a regular (if not daily) basis. I always wonder whenever I see someone doing a stupid pilot trick how well they did on their test. One wonders if every twit who flew into a cloud and spiraled in had something like "Failed to decode a GFA" on that little list of stuff they got wrong. I wonder if one recent metal bender I saw, had "Failed to recall VFR fuel requirements" and a few fellows I saw struggle to get airborne today probably had "Failed to calculate density altitude" or "Failed to recall effect of density altitude on take off performance".

Yeah, just pass the test then dump that knowledge from your brain, you'll never need it.

[Beefitarian]

I wonder if they know the answer to that one about "the minister in charge of aviation."?

[Colonel Sanders]

all of the source material for the written is very useful and applicable on a regular (if not daily) basis

Absolutely! I don't think anyone is arguing that pilots
don't need to know about weather, etc. At least, I'm
not. I personally try very hard to increase people's
aviation knowledge: www.pittspecials.com/articles.html

However, I think everyone is pretty much in agreement
that in Canada, this knowledge is measured in a pretty
bizarre, indirect fashion. The difference between the TC
and the FAA writtens is incredible - the FAA writtens are
so straightforward. No trickery. No complicated english
comprehension tests to wade through, to get to the
aviation knowledge.

What's frustrating is that this ability to decipher trick
written questions and complicated english comprehension
is a skill which is pretty much completely useless in the
cockpit.

If the ability to answer trick written questions somehow
improved performance in the cockpit, I would be all for
it.

But it doesn't. It's just another tax the government
imposes upon you. Big government, high taxes with
absolutely no concern for any kind of cost/benefit
analysis.

[PilotDAR]

Yes, there are all kinds of pilots, and it's an admittedly small group of pilots who include me in their "us", but that's okay, I like my "us" group. I do find it interesting that pilots who vigorously admit that they just want to do the minimums and squeak through, bother to read a flight training thread, much less post in it. To each their own, I recognize that there are many types of pilots, and groups of "us's". That probably is a small factor in how my insurance premiums are set.....

[radubc]

Well, I kind of tend to agree with harder tests for pilots. An exam with 100% passing rate is never credible. The best example I can give you is the test for getting a driver's license. Everybody is allowed to drive because they can. The consequence is that roads are full of people who don't have a clue about driving. All the time I see people changing lanes without signaling on busy highways, turning without signaling, turning left on the wrong way in a roundabout because it's shorter, driving 10 to 20 km/h under the speed limit on the left lane, keeping about 3 to 5 car lenghts to the car in front of them at 30 km/h, etc. Somehow these guys can still manage to do 3-5 vehicle pileups.

Just imagine what would happen if the accident rate would be the same in aviation.

Nobody will ever convince me that rules are a drag in driving cars or flying planes.

[Colonel Sanders]

I kind of tend to agree with harder tests for pilots

Me too. Can you land a light single in a direct 20 knot
crosswind and drive it down the runway only on the
upwind main? That would be an excellent, relevant
test for pilots, given the difficulty that PPL's have with
crosswind landings. As opposed to english comprehension
of trick questions.

An exam with 100% passing rate is never credible

How many decades have you been a flight instructor for?
We just had this exact same argument in regards to the
ICAS ACE Rev7 manual. An ex-FlightSafety instructor (now
airshow pilot) chimed in, and said the FAA didn't like the
FlightSafety pass rate, until they educated the FAA that:

a candidate was not recommended until they exceed the test criteria

Re-read the above sentence again. Perhaps you consider
yourself more knowledgeable about flight instruction than
FlightSafety, but a high pass rate does not necessarily
indicate cheating. It might just indicate good preparation.

With good instruction - which I admit there is very little of -
any test should simply be a formality.

Again, I don't know how many thousands of hours of flight
instruction you have given, but the student is merely moving
parts, between the instructor and the examiner. The test is
as much an evaluation of the INSTRUCTOR as it is, the student.

If the student has a good instructor and receives good preparation
for the test, he should NOT fail it.

Nobody will ever convince me that rules are a drag

What on earth are you talking about? Are you sure you posted
to the correct thread? What is being discussed here is testing
methodology. Not philosophy.

[photofly]

What's frustrating is that this ability to decipher trick
written questions and complicated english comprehension
is a skill which is pretty much completely useless in the
cockpit.

can be good for trying to figure out what ATC is asking you to do, sometimes.

[Whiplash]

Could they be milking him? Does that happen?

[Shiny Side Up]

Absolutely! I don't think anyone is arguing that pilots
don't need to know about weather, etc. At least, I'm
not.

No, you're not, but others are. I'm not sure how else this could be interpreted.

do what you have to and jump through the hoops TC requires in the PPL/CPL because 9 times out of 9.1 times it's useless and who gives a crap. Study the shit they want you to know/cheat/squeak/do what it takes an get through it because it's all irrelevant bullshit when you grow up.

While I fully agree upon the points about how the test is conducted, we must also submit that many don't do well on the written test because they don't know the source material - stuff that's critical to being a pilot. I'm not always convinced that its just the test that is the problem for people, but it sure is a convinient excuse. As I said before, the mistakes one sees pilots make on a regular basis, seems to be an indicator of the latter lack of knowledge.

In this case I often feel that our misgivings about the testing serves only as a distraction to a bigger problem: That pilots are getting licensed with an incredible lack of base knowledge.

[PilotDAR]

In this case I often feel that our misgivings about the testing serves only as a distraction to a bigger problem: That pilots are getting licensed with an incredible lack of base knowledge.

+1

[leo_ding]

thanks for guys keeping posted ,I learned a lot of .

just little confused ,what's the meaning of "be milking"?

[PilotDAR]

just little confused ,what's the meaning of "be milking"?

In this context, having a person expend more effort or expense than is reasonable for unfair financial gain [of the milker].

The problem can be though, that the "milker" is actually not very good at what they are doing in the first place, so even the extra effort is not worthwhile, where normally extra effort well expended would be...

[New_PIC]

...
just little confused ,what's the meaning of "be milking"?

When you milk a cow, you keep squeezing a little more milk out of it. A FTU or instructor might "milk" a student by repeatedly squeezing out a little more cash.

[altiplano]

If you are some kid who had a Boner for Boeing from the early years maybe this shit interests you but if you are like the rest of us you just want to get through the shit and so do what you have to and jump through the hoops TC requires in the PPL/CPL because 9 times out of 9.1 times it's useless and who gives a crap. Study the shit they want you to know/cheat/squeak/do what it takes an get through it because it's all irrelevant bullshit when you grow up.

Hardly. While I dislike the form the test takes, all of the source material for the written is very useful and applicable on a regular (if not daily) basis. I always wonder whenever I see someone doing a stupid pilot trick how well they did on their test. One wonders if every twit who flew into a cloud and spiraled in had something like "Failed to decode a GFA" on that little list of stuff they got wrong. I wonder if one recent metal bender I saw, had "Failed to recall VFR fuel requirements" and a few fellows I saw struggle to get airborne today probably had "Failed to calculate density altitude" or "Failed to recall effect of density altitude on take off performance".

Yeah, just pass the test then dump that knowledge from your brain, you'll never need it.

Yeah I could have worded it better but my point is you get through your licenses and then you really start to learn... If people don't have enough sense to understand the fuel they require or stay out of clouds well... you can't teach that in a test... as history shows plenty of licensed pilots bend metal out of idiocy...

... and you don't have to love flying or make flight theory and air law your primary interest to be good at your job or do well on a test... you just learn it because it's what you gotta do.

[leo_ding]

I had a Conversation with the chief of the school,I asked him I can't figure it out why I keep faild the exam,and did I study the wrong way.

because I used to just did bunch of questions and just learn something from that..and for the school exams,they were not just simply ask your "what cause detonation" this kind of simply question,it's more kindly like deeper question and more difficult for sure.

he gave me pretty much the same idea as your guys gave me ,study from the book ,handle the theory would help me though these questions..

I do understand they want to us being better in order to more easier to pass the TC one.. just little too hard I guess.

anyway,it's still good learning hard in order to pass the EXAM,whatever it's helps me or not in the further training..

at least I have a idea.. "how the airplane works.and which wing would stall first in a Climb trun "

I will keep guys posted.. thanks again

[Shiny Side Up]

Yeah I could have worded it better but my point is you get through your licenses and then you really start to learn... If people don't have enough sense to understand the fuel they require or stay out of clouds well... you can't teach that in a test... as history shows plenty of licensed pilots bend metal out of idiocy...

The test isn't supposed to teach it though, its supposed to assess whether you have that knowledge. The idea that you don't learn until after you're licensed is absurd - but often perpetuated here at avcanada where every pilot is naturally gifted and through willpower alone overcomes bad instruction and TC hurdles. While I would tend to agree with the Colonel in that most instruction is poor and inefficient, it obviously isn't completely ineffective or no one here would be flying airplanes, period.

The thing is people aren't starting with the sense that they must stay out of clouds, or plan for th eright ammount of fuel to have in an airplane, and especially aren't equipped when they start to figure out what they must do to prevent themselves from doing those things. Its not just common sense, its not rocket science to learn either, but its not directly obvious.

... and you don't have to love flying or make flight theory and air law your primary interest to be good at your job or do well on a test... you just learn it because it's what you gotta do.

No, but all other factors being equal, someone who does love something and is interested in the subject matter will always end up better at something than someone who isn't. Its unfortunate we have a large number of pilots who have the disconnect that while they are interested in flying, are not interested in all of those things that are behind them flying, and keep themselves safe while flying. "Pilot" by its nature is a generalist skill set rather than a specific one, but there are less and less pilots who treat it this way.

[Rookie50]

In this case I often feel that our misgivings about the testing serves only as a distraction to a bigger problem: That pilots are getting licensed with an incredible lack of base knowledge.

+1

My thought, Pilots study and get licensed, knowing checklists and written theory, but neither how to apply theory nor how systems actually work.

Case in point, when one climbs from sea level to altitude, and leans the mixture, one notices increased power (at best power).

Why then, do we have density altitude takeoff accidents? ( from simply failing to lean the mixture to best power before T/O at higher density altitudes, non - turbos of course) The engine doesnt know its on the ground.

Where is the motivation to actually, practically, figure out how things work, and the safest way to do things?

[Shiny Side Up]

Where is the motivation to actually, practically, figure out how things work, and the safest way to do things?

Its because many pilots don't make the connection between needing that knowledge and flying airplanes. To most, flying airplanes is a narrow skillset, they are often interested intensely on what they see this is. Frequently its misdirected, though occasionally I've run into guys who are good stick and rudder guys who for some reason are grossly ignorant (and many times outright incompetent) about doing simple tasks that don't directly relate to flying the plane hands on. Again, a really good pilot has a general skillset, rather than a narrow one, consequently has a wide area of interest than a narrow one. Most of the best pilots I know, aren't just handy at flying airplanes. Take a look at Budd Davisson's webpage.

[altiplano]

Yeah I could have worded it better but my point is you get through your licenses and then you really start to learn... If people don't have enough sense to understand the fuel they require or stay out of clouds well... you can't teach that in a test... as history shows plenty of licensed pilots bend metal out of idiocy...

The test isn't supposed to teach it though, its supposed to assess whether you have that knowledge. The idea that you don't learn until after you're licensed is absurd - but often perpetuated here at avcanada where every pilot is naturally gifted and through willpower alone overcomes bad instruction and TC hurdles. While I would tend to agree with the Colonel in that most instruction is poor and inefficient, it obviously isn't completely ineffective or no one here would be flying airplanes, period.

The thing is people aren't starting with the sense that they must stay out of clouds, or plan for th eright ammount of fuel to have in an airplane, and especially aren't equipped when they start to figure out what they must do to prevent themselves from doing those things. Its not just common sense, its not rocket science to learn either, but its not directly obvious.

... and you don't have to love flying or make flight theory and air law your primary interest to be good at your job or do well on a test... you just learn it because it's what you gotta do.

No, but all other factors being equal, someone who does love something and is interested in the subject matter will always end up better at something than someone who isn't. Its unfortunate we have a large number of pilots who have the disconnect that while they are interested in flying, are not interested in all of those things that are behind them flying, and keep themselves safe while flying. "Pilot" by its nature is a generalist skill set rather than a specific one, but there are less and less pilots who treat it this way.

Of course you're not taught in the test - duh... the internet is so literal I suppose... it was the point I was making that you can't test self-preservation and common sense... and of course you learn during the PPL/CPL - but not much in the scope of what's ahead - so you study it, learn it, you pass the test and you get on with it... I guess I can't remember my PPL/CPL/ATPL tests but I remember the feeling of general irrelevance looking back at them. I also know plenty of excellent pilots who are so on the ball to work with and could give a shit about airplanes beyond their profession. Boner for Boeing doesn't make you better - being intelligent and good at your job is what does it.

If you think quoting the theory, childhood dreams and hanging 737 models from your ceiling is what brings success... I guess I understand you better...

[Shiny Side Up]

I guess I understand you better...

Not likely, and by the sounds of it, probably not any more than you understand how your airplane works either. Given your level of reading comprehension, I can see where you would have had trouble with the written tests though.

[PilotDAR]

If you think quoting the theory, childhood dreams and hanging 737 models from your ceiling is what brings success...

I did not plan my success in aviation as a child by dreaming, and hanging models, however, in hind sight, it worked out better than I would ever had imagined. I'd recommend it to any kid. I suppose that people saw that passion in what I did, and many offered kindly to nurture it. Those people built a pilot out of my passion.

Though in the past I would have been shy about all the model building I did as a kid, when it grew to large sales demonstration models and wind tunnel models, for a Canadian manufacturer, and some work at NRC in Ottawa, that worked out well, in my estimation.

Interestingly, nearly every book I have have read either by, or about a test pilot, mentions that pilot building models as a kid. So childhood dreamer/model builders, be proud of your passion, don't feel put down by naysayers.

can't test self-preservation and common sense

I disagree, mine has been informally, and formally tested countless times. Many wise pilots I have flown with have kindly exercised my knowledge of this, some not so wise pilots have made me apply it, and I have sure seen written exam questions, whose correct answer would be a demonstration of a pilot's common sense and self preservation!

If we taxpayers employed an army of TC examiners of the highest skills, who had endless time to personally examine every pilot candidate within the bounds of a curriculum, and candidates who would accept the outcome without complaint, we would not need written exams at all. Written exams are just cheaper and more standardized, with an objective outcome.

[Shiny Side Up]

PilotDAR, you're a wise man and said it better than I can.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If we taxpayers employed an army of TC examiners of the highest skills, who had endless time to personally examine every pilot candidate within the bounds of a curriculum, and candidates who would accept the outcome without complaint, we would not need written exams at all. Written exams are just cheaper and more standardized, with an objective outcome.

How about a few TC examiners who can look at written exams and mark the exam based on how the person answered the question.....the exams require a written answer rather than choosing one of four multiple choice answers designed to be so tricky the person sitting the exam spends most of their time trying to decide which trick answer is closest to correct?

When I first started flying the exams were hand written answers, not this multiple choice nightmare that you face today.