Dear Transport:

pretty please can you stop making me waste my time making sure my PPL students know things like the legal night requirements for an aerodrome with retro-reflectors? My student and I would like to get back to things that matter.

Thanks

K

Make sure you know how far the runway edge lights need to be spaced apart. You might find yourself building a new runway next week and then wondering if it was 200ft or 60 meters...

iSight wrote:Dear Transport:

pretty please can you stop making me waste my time making sure my PPL students know things like the legal night requirements for an aerodrome with retro-reflectors?

Actually....what are the requirements? Just a landing light. What if only the taxi light works?

iSight wrote:Dear Transport:

pretty please can you stop making me waste my time making sure my PPL students know things like the legal night requirements for an aerodrome with retro-reflectors? My student and I would like to get back to things that matter.

Thanks

K

Well it gives you something to talk about after you have finished your lecture on LORAN theory.

and Flicker Vertigo.

The one that got my pants in a bunch on the PPL written was asking something about which minister is in charge of making air law.

I don't even know for sure why but I'm still angry decades later that someone needed to try so hard to fail to be important to me.

which minister is in charge of making air law

That's essential knowledge for every pilot, Beef, so they
know who to call when they think up a new law.

I'm sorry.. you mean there's actually someone in charge there!??

I know I'm all crazy but does anyone else think the main accomplishment of switching to the CARS, has been to prevent us from having any practical idea what the actual rules are?

I don't know anyone besides Colonel Sanders that seems to be able to find things. Even when someone finds what could be the right part, it's open to so much interpretation.

This may sound crazy, but back in the 90's, when
TC was switching from the ANO's and Air Regs and
creating this huge monster called the "CARs", I
suggested that we simply use the FARs instead.

Would have saved us billions of dollars over the
decades. Didn't get past the harrumph stage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

Harrumph indeed.

Make sure you know how far the runway edge lights need to be spaced apart. You might find yourself building a new runway next week and then wondering if it was 200ft or 60 meters...

In all fairness I actually count the lights when lined up to see how much room there is. Having said that I don't know what the conversation from meters to feet is, but if that works out to be the same then I applaud your comedic post.

Nwtflier wrote:

Make sure you know how far the runway edge lights need to be spaced apart. You might find yourself building a new runway next week and then wondering if it was 200ft or 60 meters...

In all fairness I actually count the lights when lined up to see how much room there is. Having said that I don't know what the conversation from meters to feet is, but if that works out to be the same then I applaud your comedic post.

It can be very good base knowledge for a future IFR pilot in determining if he has 1/2 mile required to takeoff as well

It can be very good base knowledge for a future IFR pilot in determining if he has 1/2 mile required to takeoff as well[/quote]

I have no problem spending time explaining that the lights are 200ft apart and how a pilot (PPL or otherwise) can use that knowledge to their benefit. But retro reflectors and LORAN and all other TC silliness? Wasted time.

Although I guess I should thank TC. They provide me with endless ground briefing which = income.

The thank you card is in the mail TC

SILLY EXAM QUESTIONS: You don't know the half of it. When I wore my "black hat", I was going over a written test with a student who had raised a query about one of the questions. He said there was no information in any of the TC references given from which to glean an answer. I ascertained that he was indeed correct and contacted the appropriate office in Ottawa with what nowadays would be called a "Whassup?" and indicated that the item in question should be struck from the exam.

Answer: OW was aware of the situation, but that they considered that there was enough information "out there" that validated the question. How the hell a student candidate was to find all this info "out there" was never explained.

PS The exam section (or whatever it was called) was run by someone with a degree in education and who understood bell curves and all that. As a pilot, it all seemed pretty hairy-fairy to me.

The military used to demand high pass marks but in doing so, were accused of "teaching to the test". And, I would have to say that this was probably a correct assessment. The majority of stuff that pertained to aircraft was necessary for the safe operation of same; it was no good knowing sixty percent of the info; at least ninety percent was necessary. (Although I do remember being introduced to the fuel system in a T-33 by technicians and being advised that I should remember the fuel levels at which microswitches in the center fuel tank activated and deactivated the transfer pump.)

Tranport Canada is probably still setting exams so that they get nice "bell curves" to validate their efforts. It's been a couple of lifetimes since I was involved, so anything may have happened; however, from the initial comments, it would appear that the players may have changed, but the game is still the same.

John

Most of the test just needs to be memorized. Example, You're taxiing and see a green flashing light from the tower. Now what?

Teaching the test is not a bad thing in my opinion. The only negative is getting a few people that can't know the concepts passing the written. I don't think they would pass a ride. I dunno.

Schooner69A wrote:Answer: OW was aware of the situation, but that they considered that there was enough information "out there" that validated the question. How the hell a student candidate was to find all this info "out there" was never explained.

What was the question?

I was with TC in Moncton from '84-'90 so it was a few years ago. It had to do with something that was no longer used/out of date or somesuch, but the exam had never been changed. Rather than telling the Regions to not count the question, they accepted that most candidates would get it wrong. Bollox way to run a railroad, but that's the way it was.

John

The suns true bearing might actually be useful. Unlike Loran they have not shut it off.

I am coming around though. I think the test should be every couple of years just for fun. It weeds out guys like me that refuse to memorize who the minister of what is and how often a guy under 30 needs to see a CAME. Or the old acronym for CAME....

I'm with you. Here's my CPL test. Instead of that ridiculous pretend cross country, give me a light single and send me to check in at five surprise airports, anywhere on the continent. No written test needed. Who cares how I do it. Can I do the task?

I'll be using a watch E6-B pencil calculator and paper VNCs.

BCpilot123 wrote:Of course, with that in mind, maybe we should be handed an Astrocompass, and figure out how to use it?

Here's a little trick for you. If you do a lot of night flying, having a reasonable bit of knowledge about the stars and the constellations can keep you out of a bit of trouble. Hopefully someone taught you how to find Polaris.

No one knows how to use the true bearing tables, let alone explain how a CPL candidate should get the answer for an exam question, without having to dig out a copy of FTGU or one of the . books, and even then its a pain in the ass.

Its not really that hard if you have the chart, can do simple things like read time, know the date and have a rough idea of what latitude you're at. Do pilots know what latitude is anymore? Do you know what Latitude you're at right now? Probably too much to ask. But then again I also learned to find locations using township and range a long time ago. Something that isn't aviation taught, but oddly enough can come up with being somewhat circumstantially useful.

Incidentally in the time it took you to read the above, I figured out the sun's true bearing for the time I typed the post for my location: 233.5 degrees. Real hard stuff to learn.

Bonus question: Who knows how to use your watch, and the sun to find your direction? Hint: you need an analog clock, digital won't do.

Second bonus question: Without a clock, and not knowing what time it is, how do you know how much time you have until dark?

The same goes for the E6B, no one really knows how to use the damed thing, since WW2 that is. The average PPL/CPL can do a ground speed check, but past that, get out of here. Besides, we've got electronic aids, CX2's, etc...

Really too bad, knowing the priniples a slide rule of that sort works on would be sort of nice - more importantly - how one can use it to speed up how one calculates. Somewhat about method and madness I guess. Sometimes I feel this sort of stuff isn't leanring it for its own sake, but its a way of learning how to learn more. No one wants to go above and beyond these days though.

Small point. Even while there's a computer that comes up with a solution for you, some times its nice to know how the computer comes up with its solution. Good to know when you might have a GIGO problem.

As much as I dislike lots of TC's exams, one sometimes suspect that they're using the "brown M&M clause" method of testing whether people have done their homework.

I just wish TC would use an evidence based criteria for questions instead of picking random trivia from the various training pubs.

If you look at the last 50 years of accident reports I would suggest you see many repeating examples where a specific lack of knowledge caused or contributed to the incident/accident. Call me crazy but why not test for the subjects pilots have already demonstrated, with bent metal, they don't get.

As for the E6B, well I find as my experience increased I used it less and less. Instead I could get a "good enough" answer with mental math or some stock rules of thumb. Most of the time I only ended up I used the E6B was mostly for "nice to know" numbers, usually when we were cruising along and I was bored. Working the wind problem backwards to get winds aloft for a PIREP, for example. But now that most of the airplanes I fly have an air data computer so I can just read the numbers off the screen.

Personally the skill I work hardest to instill in my students is not to be the ace of the wizz wheel, it is to have good TLAR skills (TLAR = That Looks About Right). This is even more important in todays GPS age as you need to be able to instinctively look at what the box is reporting and be able to say "Hey that ain't right !".

I suspect that that already might be the case, hence why obscure stuff shows up in the exam question bank. WRT the reflector question, I know of one case where someone bent up his airplane, when it was decided that only one row of reflectors was good enough to make the landing.

I don't know anymore. While people complain a lot about the tests - especially the PPL - I just keep finding that pilots really don't have the need to know base knowledge, I'm not convinced that a lot of the pilot population would have a better time with the tests if only the wording was made better.

Shiny Side Up wrote:I suspect that that already might be the case, hence why obscure stuff shows up in the exam question bank. WRT the reflector question, I know of one case where someone bent up his airplane, when it was decided that only one row of reflectors was good enough to make the landing.

I don't share you faith. When my last student wrote the PPL exam I asked if the met portion had any questions which in any way tested why knowing the temp/dew point was important, a detail I make a big deal about with my students.

The answer was no, although there was, of course, the obligatory trivia question on obscure METAR abbreviations.

How many pilots have got into trouble not paying attention to a close temp/dew point spread vs how many have had an accident from not knowing some METAR abbreviation, especially now when every met site gives the weather in plain language.

That's because that's not what they attribute those accidents to (knowing what the significance of the dewpoint spread is) but rather the crashee's lack of instrument experience. I've yet to read an accident report that has said directly that the pilot should not even have commenced the flight, but rather will generally focus on a problem after that point. That said though, I've seen enough wrong answers lists so its possible that significance of the dewpoint spread is something that's lumped in with the rather general "failed to decode information on the METAR". From both of the accidents that I'm familiar with where the appearance of fog has been a contributing factor (and arguably the significance of the dewpoint spread) that specific failing was never mentioned.

The point would be when the end result can be obviously and most bluntly directly related, does a specific bit get into the testing bank.