Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
#1694647
Balliol wrote:
carlmeek wrote:I’m starting my FI course this week and on the fence about the CPL TKs. I just chatted to the school and they recommend you do them.

They said that you have to use a proper ground school course and then book exams with the CAA. This appears to add £1500+ bill on top of CAA exam fees. Is this really mandatory? If not, I would have just self studied and made heavy use of question banks.


Carl - yes you have to do an approved groundschool course with some mandatory attendance

IMHO, there is significant urban myth about ‘you can just smash the question banks and get through’ - in my experience there is no way anyone can pass without a degree of guided study, actual understanding of the topics and some reinforcement in a face to face environment. More recent people like @jaycee58 might have a view?


Some people do indeed try to pass just by "smashing the question banks". I have come across it while at ground school but Balliol is correct, you need the study, and I find this attitude quite appalling especially when the person involved want to be an airline pilot. Maybe it's taken me longer than expected because of my attitude (I started studying last October) but I think diligent study and understanding is definitely the only way to go. There are so many questions (I think around 16,000 in the bank) that to try and memorise them would be a task that Einstein might find intimidating. In addition, a lot of questions, especially those involving calculation, are no longer multiple choice. You do the sums then type your answer into the computer.
#1694688
Balliol wrote:
carlmeek wrote:I’m starting my FI course this week and on the fence about the CPL TKs. I just chatted to the school and they recommend you do them.

They said that you have to use a proper ground school course and then book exams with the CAA. This appears to add £1500+ bill on top of CAA exam fees. Is this really mandatory? If not, I would have just self studied and made heavy use of question banks.


Carl - yes you have to do an approved groundschool course with some mandatory attendance

IMHO, there is significant urban myth about ‘you can just smash the question banks and get through’ - in my experience there is no way anyone can pass without a degree of guided study, actual understanding of the topics and some reinforcement in a face to face environment. More recent people like @jaycee58 might have a view?


Having completed ATPLs recently I would humbly disagree with you (partially)

The ground school was interesting but to be honest I just did is as I had to it, and I'm 100% convinced I could have done it without the ground school.

However, I do agree that 'bashing the banks' is not the way. I studied the material in the coursework manuals and then used banks to help me understand where I needed further study and understanding.

Some of the study forums were also useful for questions/answers etc...
#1694690
PaulB wrote:
derekf wrote:One of the lowest cost option with a lot of self study is CAPT (who I did my ATPLs with recently) - see http://capt.gs/courses.html#CPLA.
There was a chap on my ground school who had FI and wanted to get CPL TK - seemed to do it quite quickly...


It's not just money, though..... It's the time and energy and effort that you have to expend learning something that, albeit interesting in its own right, you're never ever going to use in your future practice.

There's a post on here from someone who found out to their cost that the Nav part of CPL TK was almost entirely jet based. How ridiculous is that? ... and how irrelevant to being a PPL/LAPL/SEP FI.


That's a fair point. However, if you need to do the study anyway, I'm the sort of guy who'd prefer to fo as much self study as possible with the minimal cost (actual cash out) possible.
#1694717
In addition to the size of the question bank, there are also 200 new questions added each cycle and old ones retired. However reports suggest that some older style questions are creeping back in.

As a serial course changer, I can confirm that a good deal of all of the exams from ATPL to CBIR are not going to be much use to the average PPL level FI. A good deal of the instrumentation section looks at Flight Management Systems and Automation. A chunk of the CBIR course module on flight planning is based on a twin engine jet and calculating the endurance with air miles as opposed to ground miles for example. However, as is regularly pointed out by the tutors, if you go ahead and gain the ratings and add the required additional type ratings you could be flying a twin engine jet with a flight management system on a CBIR. They are training on to the maximum level of use.

Where it all becomes silly is for this to be the gateway to bash the circuit with a newbie in a PA 28.
#1694721
PaulB wrote:
It's not just money, though..... It's the time and energy and effort that you have to expend learning something that, albeit interesting in its own right, you're never ever going to use in your future practice.

There's a post on here from someone who found out to their cost that the Nav part of CPL TK was almost entirely jet based. How ridiculous is that? ... and how irrelevant to being a PPL/LAPL/SEP FI.


Why?

Speeds are different, reserve fuel is different, and whilst you are unlikely to, legally you are qualified to fly polar navigation with a CPL, so there's no good case to eliminate that. Basically most of the material is commin whether you are flying a C-150 or C-130.

VFR nav is VFR nav.

And for that matter, you can fly many turbine aircraft on a CPL.

G
By PaulB
#1694731
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Why?

Speeds are different, reserve fuel is different, and whilst you are unlikely to, legally you are qualified to fly polar navigation with a CPL, so there's no good case to eliminate that. Basically most of the material is commin whether you are flying a C-150 or C-130.

VFR nav is VFR nav.

And for that matter, you can fly many turbine aircraft on a CPL.

G


But I don’t want to fly a jet or a turbine.... which is a good job, as I’ll never get the opportunity. Consequently learning all that stuff for no future purpose other than “the rules sez so” is somewhat off putting.
#1694734
It strikes me that a good first step is to identify why pilots who might become instructors choose not to do so.


I have a full time job at the moment, but one day when I have both the time and the money to take a step back from this, then being a flight instructor is something I'd really like to do.
#1694759
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Problem is - there's only the one CPL.

Of course, the real issue is NOT the inclusion of jet material - it is the sheer and excessive volume of material in the EASA CPL TK.

G

Thing is, many of us aren’t going to be CPL’s and will go no further then using the CPL TK to become PPL FI’s who can teach newbies the PPL syllabus.
It seems a blunt instrument to achieve that goal. It would seem a dedicated FI ground examination regime would be more appropriate, with a rating limit such as SEP only. Then as new classes were added to your licence a new set of dedicated instruction for FI’s in those classes of aircraft would be taught and examined. Perhaps it’s time to end the one size fits all approach. As things stand it is incredibly difficult to take an FI rating to another country. A CPL is a rating with global scope and the TK reflects that. Wouldn’t it be better for the PPL FI to spend all that time focusing on the issues they and their students are going to have to deal with in their local country and less on what a Typhoon in Australia is wrongly called by the TK.
jaycee58 liked this
By PaulB
#1694780
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Problem is - there's only the one CPL.

Of course, the real issue is NOT the inclusion of jet material - it is the sheer and excessive volume of material in the EASA CPL TK.

G


Indeed......
#1694821
At face value the CPL TK seems superfluous for instructing.

I know someone that is doing ATPL theory right now and has taken some of the exams, he says there is no way you can “QUESTION BANK “ your way through the exams. They are structured so that you really need to understand the subject and be capable of doing any necessary calculations.
Even human performance is now becoming quite difficult as the Learning Objectives seem to be rather variable. Things were tightened up at the request of Industry a couple of years back because of banking leading to poor understanding at interview.

The banks are useful for practice but if you don’t know the subject you will probably fail.
He also reports that a large proportion of the topics are not directly relevant to instructing.
But having flown with him recently his knowledge is definitely far greater and directly applicable to the GA flight we did, his advanced evaluation of the MET situation and engines produced very practical suggestions for best routing , cruise and runway selection ( coastal winds predicted ) and diagnosis of a rough running engine that ran on after shutdown.
He was bang on in both, 5 months ago he would not have been able to offer such comprehensive assistance.
Also, his ground instructors whilst acknowledging the difficulty of the ATPL and CPL TK made it pretty clear that it was filter to pull out the best or at least those who are properly motivated ready and willing to put the work in.
I reckon that’s an important aspect too easily brushed aside, in my opinion there should be a new instructor TK with standard and special modules, I see no reason why they should not be deep and difficult to pass not for the sake of it, but because you need to know it.
The problem will be catering to those who want to use any exam credits towards a CPL /ATPL in the future.
#1694834
Paul_Sengupta wrote:G, you've done the FAA CPL, what's your opinion on the course content of that? How much "jet" stuff does that have?

Virtually none - in the FAA world, that material is all in your type rating, should you do one.

Do bear in mind however, as we are talking about the route to become instructor, that in FAAland you must also pass the IR - including all that TK, which is very considerable, before you can do CFI.

(And for the record I have only passed the written, not yet the oral and checkride.)

G
By PaulB
#1694840
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:G, you've done the FAA CPL, what's your opinion on the course content of that? How much "jet" stuff does that have?

Virtually none - in the FAA world, that material is all in your type rating, should you do one.


So are we suggesting that the (presumably) ICAO compliant CPL TK in FAA land is significantly different from the (presumably also) ICAO compliant CPL TK in EASA land?
#1694861
It most definitely is, I can vouch for that.


But we must (yes, I know I've said this before) keep remembering that every nation's system is approved by ICAO as a whole. EASA does not require IR TK for instructor, nor a CPL - just the TK: whilst FAA requires the whole CPL, whole IR, *then* you are allowed to take the two CFI TK written exams and do the CFI course.

I'm sure that there are Americans who love the idea of not having to do an IR before they can become an instructor !

Another really obvious differences is that in EASAland you have to pass all the TK before you can do a course, and in FAAland you can do them in parallel. Hence in the USA most TK instruction is done within flight schools, and in EASAland mostly the ground and flight training providers are different businesses.

G
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10