Items failed...

[Invertago]

Just wondering what other instructors see their students failing most in the PP written exam these days? I am about to teach a ground school and was just trying to figure out any particular items to give a little extra attention to.

[EatSleepFly]

General knowledge has been RAPING people lately....

[bob sacamano]

General knowledge has been RAPING people lately....

Funny enough I heard the same thing yesterday. I've seen many fail Met.

[TC Guy]

Just wondering what other instructors see their students failing most in the PP written exam these days? I am about to teach a ground school and was just trying to figure out any particular items to give a little extra attention to.

Interestingly enough, Transport Canada is kind enough to post this kind of information on the internet.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/gener ... s/Weak.htm

Fill yer boots.

-Guy

[Invertago]

Thanks TC-Guy, thats a great link, I'll make an extra point to focus on those areas.

[master switch]

ppl and cpl is weight and balance theory, actual wb is ok and xc planning.

[bobcat18]

here is a new part of the TC website.
It list weak knowlege areas by exam.
Seems to be fairly accurate.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/gener ... s/Weak.htm

[tired of the ground]

Is it just me or do the weak areas seem to point towards how the questions are being asked and not what the pilots actual knowledge base is?

Do instructors really have problems with altimeter settings theory?

Do ATPL's really have problems with Overspeeding Propellors and what to do with them?

No joke, I had a question recently that had a double negative in the question

Maybe instead of spending a bunch of money to publish what is being failed, they could spend the money to make the tests better. Instead of testing your English knowledge they could test your AVIATION KNOWLEDGE.

Sorry to hijack your thread. Just venting.

[quicksilver]

Instead of testing your English knowledge they could test your AVIATION KNOWLEDGE.

agreed

quick

[bobcat18]

You are right the exams seem to test your knowledge of english.
if the knowledge exams are a test of english can you imagine what the english language testing is going to be like.
I have also heard it takes transport 52 man hours to produce one question. Seems like a waste of time.

[quicksilver]

The funny thing about transport Canada exams are that they don't really question your English language skill. So many questions are just worded wrong or so poor that you just don't know what the hell they're asking. The double negatives really used to chafe my ass. Grow a brain and ask me a question that MAKES SENSE that way I can answer in a way that MAKES SENSE. Every exam I wrote I left thinking "well maybe 60%, maybe 90%" worst feeling ever. The other thing that would piss me off is the "you have to pick the one that is MOST right....." Here is an idea, in the multiple choice, make one answer RIGHT and the rest WRONG. Instead of some confusing double negative two right answer bull crap.


quick

[Tango01]

Here is an idea, in the multiple choice, make one answer RIGHT and the rest WRONG. Instead of some confusing double negative two right answer bull crap.

They want people to fail so they re-write and spend more money.

[More Hawker Than Sidley]

From a discussion with TC some time ago about written exams I was informed that it certainly is NOT there intention to test a candidate's English...that is expected. The reason the questions are worded as such is to CLEARLY (???) determine if the candidate REALLY knows the information so that he can identify the MOST CORRECT ANSWER. I know, I know.....this seems like BS, but look at it from the TC perspective (If you can, and its not easy). So the idea is to place the most correct answer in a somewhat complicated obtruse format with the idea that the candidate will be able to answer with no problem if he knows the information frontwards and backwards. I know this doesnt help much but I suspect TC is not about to change their methods of developing questions for the written exams. MHTS

[trey kule]

I am going to add an old guy's perspective to this thread. One of the things I notice from checking out alot of new pilots over the years is that the ones that do well on the written exams tend to ultimately be better pilots. The ones who have failed claim trickery, claim they demand superior english skills, and whatnot. From my perspective the exams (WRITTEN) do a pretty good job of assessing a pilots knowledge.
There are exceptions to this , but they to, are predictable.

As far as emphasizing an area, that is an honorable and notable idea. If I may offer an opinion , try and teach for understanding. Go easy on the acronoyms as they do not tend to teach understanding, just rote, parrot like recitals. Empahasize everything. I am surprised that weight and balance would be an issue because every good instructor should be having their student do a WB before every flight, and practice different scenarios...

[quicksilver]

Empahasize everything.

well that would be easy enough

quick

[trey kule]

Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as possible with the emphasize everything. The point I was trying to make is everything is important. The emphasis should be learning everything, not trying to pass a test. If you know your stuff the test will look after itself.

There is a tendency, it seems to me, that some things are not considered important by instructors because the instructors dont have the experience to realize their importance, particularily when the students are going on to work in the industry in more complex aircraft.

My thoughts. Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough to warrent your sarcasm.

[co-joe]

The key to the writtens is to RTFQ squared. That's read the F'n question at least twice.

My favorite are the; "Of the following incorrect answers, pick the most incorrect." Or the ones where A, C, G, H, anf I are correct, B, C, F, and G are correct, none of the above, all of the above, one of the above.

Aaaargh! There's no guessing on those ones though.