INRAT & CAP GEN

[unregistered]

Hi all,

I'm helping someone prepare for the INRAT and I have a quick question ...

I seem to remember writing the INRAT (quite some time ago) and being provided with a copy of the CAP GEN during the exam. Can anyone tell me if that's still the case?

I tried ringing TCCA today, but the lady on the phone didn't seem to know.

Thanks in advance.

[photofly]

I think I was given some data but not the whole CAP GEN, no.

[wud2nuq]

I wrote about a month ago, no CAP GEN provided, and no commercial approach ban questions either. A friend wrote at the same time, different place, completely different exam, no CAP GEN for them either. Good luck.

[unregistered]

That's great guys, thanks!

[unregistered]

Actually, one more question ...

When I did sat the INRAT (about 15 years ago), the questions in the AeroCourse IFR Workbook were almost identical to the questions on the exam. In other words, if you could answer all (or most) of those questions, you'd be capable of passing the exam.

Is that still the case?

Cheers!

[photofly]

The INRAT doesn't have any commercial ops questions at all. PPL's can and do get instrument ratings without having to know anything at all about 70x type stuff.

[B52]

I wrote it a week ago and about 15 years ago and back in 1988
so I can advise that some questions are still the same but there are
new questions in there that really test knowledge that you will NOT
get right from reading the standard publications and
I'm referring to AeroCourse, Sharper Edge and Colhane.


I'd rate all of them as being out of date, Sharper edge has some of the questions
as does AeroCourse.

I used all three, Aerocourse, Sharper Edige and Colhane and sat the exam at a time, in hindsight,
that I should not have. I went back over my answers and changed a few and failed it by one question
which did me a real favour.

It showed me that my many things had changed that I was unaware of.

I then purchased the CanadaPilot.com software for $39 and
it really shows up the three books.

I'm also told that the Harv's air site Inrat on line course is also excellent.

I'd say this, if you can work your way though around 1,200 questions and diligently study the answers and explanations
provided, you will pass by an impressive score.

I'd suspect that many students will give up on aiming for 100% pass on the 1,200 questions and will sit the exam
when they get a satisfactory score, what ever their goal is, and then write the exam.

The current INRAT has evolved. Some questions are like the inrat of old.

Some questions are very carefully worded
to the point that will challenge working pilots and there are many who would not be able to pass the exam.

My view is this, the pass rate might be 70% but if you just scrape through the Inrat exam,
you will be a liability in an airplane.

I've probably put in 100 hours of study since writing the exam and have more to go before I'll
rewrite the exam.

In asking around, it appears that a very small percentage score more than 90%.
It would be interesting to know how the national results.

Other countries can let you not fly for decades and never have to rewrite the instrument exam
but Canada chooses to have the two year rule and its a good idea.

It would also help to have on-going education with INRAT style exams to
score points for a bi-annual review or PPC ect.

It's that on-going education factor that appears to be ignored in Canada.

[digits_]

Hi all,

I'm helping someone prepare for the INRAT and I have a quick question ...

I seem to remember writing the INRAT (quite some time ago) and being provided with a copy of the CAP GEN during the exam. Can anyone tell me if that's still the case?

I tried ringing TCCA today, but the lady on the phone didn't seem to know.

Thanks in advance.

I wrote it in july and got the CAP GEN pages related to the questions. I had questions about the minima and the approach ban stuff, and the pages of the cap gen regarding this matter were present.
However, I've heard from other people that they are not always present. So better study it anyway...

[Colonel Sanders]

Some questions are very carefully worded to the point that will challenge working pilots and there are many who would not be able to pass the exam

Meh. Everyone knows that the TC written tests are more
a test of your reading comprehension than your aviation
knowledge. Sometime, write an FAA written test and you
will see an enormous difference. The FAA doesn't care if
you have a PhD in English literature - they just test your
aviation knowledge.

a very small percentage score more than 90%

TC keeps your written test scores (after 1990) online. Here's mine:



When I finally got around to writing the INRAT for the
first time in 1993 - no course, just self-study - no one
could believe I got 94%. No one had even heard of a
score that high. All bullsh1t, of course.

the pass rate might be 70% but if you just scrape through the Inrat exam,
you will be a liability in an airplane

Can't agree with you there. You might be a wizard in
the TC testing office, and hopeless in the cockpit.

Remember, flying is about operating heavy motorized
equipment, not answering trick exam questions with
complicated language.

Look at this video, all the rage now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08K_aEajzNA


Do you think he's an ace at written tests? Does it matter?

He understands the physics of operating an aircraft in
crappy weather, doesn't he?

[B52]

CS and FAA exams,
I found the exams far more practical and satisfying than the INRAT.
That 94% score is impressive, as is the 88% you got later on.

The material you quoted is golden.
I'm guessing that around 90% of the questions come from the AIM RAC
and just sitting back and reading and absorbing every sentence in the RAC
is a good way to go.

What I've noticed is that a lot of people, can't do that quality of study
by themselves, they like to be spoon fed, and Aerocourse cater to that
and I'd rather earn a real pass the hard way.

The TC questions have a high examination familiarity requirement,
you can know the material and fail to comprehend the question if
you are not accustomed to their style, that tends to be more
of an academic test rather than a practical knowledge test.

I don't mind that, I'd rather have a test like that ensures you
really do know and understand the material than being able to
wing it for the exam.

I've made notes on about 500 odd questions so far and
riddled my hard copy with notes and underlines.


After spending another 100 odd hours studying, you grow accustomed
to the psychology behind the questions which requires familiarity
with the TC style of questions.

I've yet to re-write the exam but I've gained the impression that
the Dauntless software aka Canadapilot.com does an impressive great job of mimicking
the style of the TC INRAT.

After being out of it for 16 years I feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle.

Has anyone used the Harv's air on line material?

I'd suspect it's very similar to the Dauntless.

[Colonel Sanders]

the 88% you got later on (the 2nd INRAT)

I was in your position - my IFR had been expired for more
than 2 years (flying aerobatics in cloud apparently didn't
count) so I had to re-write the INRAT. Lucky me.

The first time I wrote the INRAT, we had these horrible text
FA's that were a wall of text describing a complicated double
front system. You had to know to bring in a piece of acetate
and draw the systems on it, and slide it in the direction of th
isobars in the warm sector. I aced that, even on the brutal
INRAT "four" which a TC personnel Inspector told me afterwards,
that everyone failed.

The second time I wrote the INRAT, the FA was a bad, distant
memory and they had this new-fangled "GFA" that was so
easy and simple in comparison.

Well, the second time I wrote the INRAT, I got EVERY GFA
question wrong on it. Six questions, I think. I have no idea
how I still got 88%. I bombed. If they had given me a horrible
FA "wall of text" I would have probably done better.

Another funny story: My father was a T-6/T-33/F-86/F-104
pilot. Weapons test pilot on the CF-104 at CEPE. Developed
the all-weather nuclear bomb role for the -104 and was the
first to demonstrate it to incredulous generals, which required
low-altitude aerobatics in cloud under the hood.

You know, in IMC. Needless to say, he had his "green ticket"
on the -104. Got his civilian licences after he got out. Let his
IFR expire, had to write the INRAT again. Got a massive 70%.

I laughed my @ss off.

Here's the low-altitude IFR aerobatic nuclear bomb toss development
expert, and he barely passed the INRAT. He didn't think it was
quite so funny.

Quite seriously, I have thought about the INRAT for many years
now, and I think TC should drop the pretense of testing IFR aviation
knowledge from it, and simply make it an IQ test.

If you don't score a minimum of 130 (two sigma above mu), you
don't get to fly in cloud in Canada, because TC doesn't want stupid
people flying in cloud in Canada. That's the truth of the matter.

Let the IFR flight test (oral portion) test your IFR knowledge.