Here they hand out a calculator. So far I did all calculations in my head. I like that, keeps the old grey mass in shape. But I’ll do it with any calculator.
The “perverted logic” thing is most annoying. I come to the point that I believe it’s rather 30-40% understanding the facts, some 20 % “speed” and the rest is training the skill to see the traps.
I think that I have a good card set for the exam because most of the questions are new to me (made 1 year coffee break between the training course and applying for the exam) but still I already rarely hit a test below 75%, mostly around 85 to 90.
I took mine last spring, having used AviationExam for prep. The questions bore no resemblance to each other, which definitely made the tests more difficult, since part of success with any exam is figuring out how they are trying to trick you. I found the air law easiest, as it’s mostly memorization of facts, but even there the questions required more judgment and analysis than I was expecting.
Flight planning was somehow the most difficult, because there are so many ways to screw up all the calculations, and I’d gotten somewhat used to the AviationExam trickery. The new questions found other ways to throw me off, and I just took way too much time double checking everything. I’m normally a fast test taker, but I ran out of time on that one and had to speed through the last questions.
dutch_flyer wrote:
I took mine last spring, having used AviationExam for prep
As far to what I’ve read spring 2021 under the 2020 syllabus might have been the worst. Now it might even be that questions in AE already resemble to the exam questions.
dutch_flyer wrote:
The questions bore no resemblance to each other, which definitely made the tests more difficult, since part of success with any exam is figuring out how they are trying to trick you.
I really don’t think they’re trying to trick you. It is very difficult to design multiple-choice questions so that the correct answer isn’t obvious. I’ve done some of those myself in my job as university lecturer and I always get accusations from students that I’m trying to “trick” them. Of course I’m not.
That said, the exams could be done much better. In particular, I would like to see scenario-based exams where you are presented with a concrete situation (e.g. flight) and have to answer questions relating to that.
I would like to see scenario-based exams where you are presented with a concrete situation (e.g. flight) and have to answer questions relating to that.
That would also be difficult because the IR doesn’t teach you to fly a plane 
It’s like the IR syllabus which uses the low level IFR charts to plan a route. Anybody who actually tries that is not even going to get as far as the aircraft.
The best way to do all the JAA/EASA writtens is banging the QB. The content mostly does not relate to actual flying knowledge. You pick that up from other pilots, and on EuroGA 
The QB is useful to “get into the mind of the writer”. I posted a writeup from my JAA IR here. There were interesting strategies, listed in the writeup, e.g. longest option is likely the right one, and in regulatory matters it was usually the strictest one (again revealing the personality of the writer of those, believed to have been a Portugese ATCO).
Peter wrote:
The QB is useful to “get into the mind of the writer”.
Yeah this was my point exactly, and why I felt the AE question bank failed me in this case. I was taken completely off guard, and that dramatically eroded my confidence. The reality is the tests are complete BS, especially compared to the FAA written/oral, which is at least as hard but a much better test of the required knowledge and skills. Passing the EASA IR theory says practically nothing about one’s ability to competently fly IFR.
The FAA written is mostly about memorizing things, too, just things you’re going to need to know anyway ;-)
The Sheppard Air course / method is just that, and it does work.
Peter wrote:
That would also be difficult because the IR doesn’t teach you to fly a plane
I don’t think it would be difficult. (And I have written some tests in my life and taught ground school.) But it requires a different mindset on the part of the people who run the exams.
(“Flying a plane” is what you’re taught in flight training – not ground school.)
Sure, but you would need a completely different QB if you want to be “practical”.
All the European exams (above the PPL/IMCR level) are based on the 1990s JAA ATPL QB, with various hacking done especially after that QB was published in IIRC Denmark following an FOIA application
When the CB IR came along, it continued that QB because there was nobody around willing to do a new QB. Also there were political interests (ATC/airline unions, etc) which demanded a similar level of theory for “amateurs” and “professionals”. IOW, the usual crap we have in Europe.
Peter wrote:
you would need a completely different QB if you want to be “practical”.
That was my point…
