The hardest question on the written test
Dallas
and this is it. I got it right, but it took many, many minutes of fumbling
with the E6B to figure out all the steps to bring it home. I'm pretty
comfortable saying it's the most complex problem on the PP test.
On a cross-country flight, point A is crossed at 1500 hours and the plan is
to reach point B at 1530 hours. Use the following information to determine
the indicated airspeed required to reach point B on schedule.
Distance between A and B 70 NM
Forecast wind 310 at 15 kts
Pressure altitude 8,000 ft
Ambient temperature -10 C
True course 270
The required indicated airspeed would be approximately
A. 126 knots.
B. 137 knots.
C. 152 knots.
--
Dallas
Tom L.
I'm sure if you try it again and apply yourself.... :)
70 nm in 30 minutes -> GS = 140 knots
15 knots headwind 40 deg from course ->
that's about 11 knots headwind component (45 deg would be 71% of 15,
40deg is a little more than that) -> TAS has to be 151 knots
Now set -10C over 8000' on the E6B and read IAS under TAS of 151. It's
137.
Done.
Or, without the calculator: -10C is a little too cold for 8000
standard atmosphere, so DA is maybe 7000 or less. TAS is 2% per 1000'
higher then IAS, so which of the three IAS + 14% is closest to 151?
Again 137.
- Tom
Dallas
> It's 137.
Correctamundo.
--
Dallas
Dudley Henriques
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:23:22 GMT, Tom L. wrote:
>
>> It's 137.
>
> Correctamundo.
>
>
You got multiple choice to choose from all right, but the answers that
were wrong weren't just wrong. They were exactly what the answer would
be if you were using an improper method and figured out the problem the
wrong way using that bad method.
This was insidious enough, but now one had to consider as well that
using the incorrect answer for a cross country problem made the
following answers relying on that initial answer wrong as well. So
instead of just getting 1 question wrong, you stood a good chance of
getting several more wrong as you used your incorrect answer to solve
the following problems.
ingenious no???
(The FAA hired a lot of Psych majors I think :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
RST Engineering
Jim
--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:e4Cdna9BipoDLETb...@rcn.net...
Dudley Henriques
> Well they sure as hell didn't hire any education majors to write the FOI.
>
> Jim
>
DH
--
Dudley Henriques
Bob Noel
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
> The FAA used to play little mind games with people taking the written.
> You got multiple choice to choose from all right, but the answers that
> were wrong weren't just wrong. They were exactly what the answer would
> be if you were using an improper method and figured out the problem the
> wrong way using that bad method.
why is this bad? Someone who uses the wrong method to try to answer
a multiple-guess question SHOULD get it wrong.
--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)
RST Engineering
my prep, my (still in my library) margin notes in the study guide were
largely "WTF??"
Jim
--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:5qKdnRo6s9nsKkTb...@rcn.net...
Dudley Henriques
meaning. There's nothing wrong with formatting a test in this manner. In
fact, I for one would seriously consider this format had I personally
been assigned the task of formatting these tests.
The term "bad" only means bad as the improper answer is opposed to the
right answer. You can substitute the word "wrong" if you like and it
makes the context more understandable.
--
Dudley Henriques
SR20GOER
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-4DE...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Disagree. One of the problems facing students is the PASS / FAIL mindset of
most education systems.
Real life does not work that way. All life tends to be a series of learning
and corrective actions, and accepts that 50% of people will be below the
average. What educators forget is that their job is to raise the average
not educate the ablest.
In a genuine navex or trip most would notice variation from the planned
track and institute correction. Feedback leads to review and repair, not
Pass/Fail.
It was not a hard question for one experienced and twelve months down track
Dallas would do it in his head.
As far as the practicality of the question goes, how often does one plan to
be at a point half an hour away at a critical time? Most of us look for the
most efficient altitude (wind and vector) and best power or best economy to
suit our aircraft hire rate and our intentions.
Brian
Bob Noel
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > why is this bad? Someone who uses the wrong method to try to answer
> > a multiple-guess question SHOULD get it wrong.
> >
> It's not "bad" in the sense you are apparently interpreting it's
> meaning.
ok. I misunderstood the tone of your post.
Bob Gardner
in the 60's, and I wish they had never dumbed down the knowledge tests.
Bob Gardner
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:e4Cdna9BipoDLETb...@rcn.net...
hettingr
It's easy to be irritated at a multiple-choice test. It feels as if
the information is somehow trivialized. I don't know, though.
I'm more than little fascinated at the unique way the aviation
community passes on its knowledge. I've never taken a test before in
which I memorized a book. In the past I would have said that there
was something improper or ineffective or "cheating" about such an
approach to knowledge (getting a copy of the answers before a test).
However, I see something happening that apparently creates an
effective foundation for learning a complex, even dangerous, vocation.
However you "learn" the test, you end up having the information/
knowledge available to many different skills and cognitive processes.
Perhaps for a pilot, the knowledge has to be accurate and
instantaneous even more (at first) than it needs to be deeply
understood.
By learning to recognize and select the answer to a multiple-choice
question, the student is putting a very LARGE amount of technical,
verbal, and conceptual patterns into a complex framework not only in
memory, but in action. In the multiple-choice form, the selection of
an existing answer involves quick motion, be it pen, mouse, or eyes--
just as the eventual true use of the information will evolve to
instinctive motion in operating the plane.
After becoming internalized, this framework of joined knowledge&action
can form a skeleton on which experience can attach in a constructive
way.
At least it looks that way to me.
Dudley Henriques
flying this way and would instantly fire any instructor I hired that I
found using this method of teaching and/or approaching flying with this
mindset.
When you start dealing with teaching people to do something that will
kill them instantly the instant they do it wrong, you better start doing
some "re-arranging" of the traditional teaching mindset.
The first thing you have to do when training a new instructor is to
break them of the mindset that traditional teaching techniques that work
wonderfully in the classroom need some serious "adjustment" when
teaching someone at 100mph plus.
The entire learning curve involved with learning to fly an airplane has
to be focused completely on the fact that what you do in that airplane
has to be done right the first time....EVERY time! You teach people to
fly on the assumption that there will be no second chance.....no "try it
out and see if it works".....and no learning from the mistake so that
you do it better next time". Using this teaching philosophy can
eventually get someone killed.
I have lectured on this issue to flight instructors all over the United
States at one time or another. In explaining this "difference" in
teaching philosophy it is critical that CFI's be made to understand that
it's not the entire teaching process that must be altered when dealing
with the flying scenario. In the learning stage, with the instructor on
board with the student, the trial and error scenario is fine. But make
no mistake here. It's up to the instructor to impart to every student
they teach that the trial and error scenario ends the instant the
instructor turns the aircraft over to the student to go fly alone. It is
absolutely imperative that the instructor teaches in such a manner that
the student develops a flying mindset that is deeply embedded in a
strong attitude that although perfection in the air may be unattainable,
the seeking of that perfection is a never ending mindset that is so
deeply ingrained in the student that the attitude developed is one of a
zero acceptance for errors committed in the air.
Basically all this means if you break it down to basics is that as an
instructor, the last mental attitude you want to impart to a student
pilot is one that accepts error as a common event to be learned from as
it occurs. That will work in the classroom, but at 100mph plus, a mental
attitude seeking perfection at all times, even though unattainable, is
the attitude you need when seeking a long term tenure as a pilot.
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
> In article <u5GdnRXhP8N2RkTb...@rcn.net>,
> Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>>> why is this bad? Someone who uses the wrong method to try to answer
>>> a multiple-guess question SHOULD get it wrong.
>>>
>> It's not "bad" in the sense you are apparently interpreting it's
>> meaning.
>
> ok. I misunderstood the tone of your post.
>
the manner in which I posted :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
education :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
SR20GOER
Dudley
You have commented on something I neither stipulated nor meant.
I did not suggest teaching tolerance for errors, I suggested that the role
of the educator is to lift the average BUT that errors DO occur in life and
are reviewed and repaired to make the corrective action.
A mental attitude seeking perfection will still make mistakes, or better
termed learning experiences. Part of the training is to be able to recover
quickly and safely from such events.
Humanity being as it is the normal distribution still applies to
capabilities. Pilots do not come from a gene pool of gurudom. Even
experience dulls perfection as evinced by the hours under the belt
statistics for pilots involved in serious accidents.
Teach perfection but accept that the coat will not fit all who pass. That's
why the pass mark is not 100%. And, even when teaching perfection, it is a
wise instructor who allows a student to diverge on a navex - to see how
quickly the student will identify the problem then use training to resolve
it.
That is the point I am trying to get across. That and the fact that the
question posed hardly emulates real situations.
cheers
Brian
Dudley Henriques
Teaching someone to fly using this mindset is indeed teaching tolerance
for errors. The job description of a flight instructor deals directly
with keeping people alive in airplanes. To do this correctly requires
that you recognize the fact that although errors can and do occur, the
most serious error you could possibly make as a CFI would be teaching
someone to accept this premise as a natural occurrence to be learned
from and corrected as it happens.
In flight instruction, PREVENTION is prime and correction is secondary.
The fact that prevention is prime in no way conflicts with the real life
premise that error will occur. It's just the OPTIMUM way to approach the
issue of flight instruction.
A properly trained pilot spends more time training to prevent error and
less time training to learn from it when it happens.
This doesn't mean the properly trained pilot doesn't learn from error
when it happens and it doesn't mean that a properly trained pilot isn't
prepared to correct error when it happens.
All it means is that the properly trained pilot eats, sleeps, thinks,
and indeed lives in a mindset that is geared on prevention rather than
correction. The learning that you are talking about takes place as
prevention is addressed.
>
> A mental attitude seeking perfection will still make mistakes, or better
> termed learning experiences. Part of the training is to be able to recover
> quickly and safely from such events.
True enough, but not the main concentration of the training. The main
concentration of the training should always be on prevention rather than
recovery from "these events".
>
> Humanity being as it is the normal distribution still applies to
> capabilities. Pilots do not come from a gene pool of gurudom. Even
> experience dulls perfection as evinced by the hours under the belt
> statistics for pilots involved in serious accidents.
Pilots are nothing more or less than normal people taught and trained to
do something right the first time. They don't have to be "gurus" to do this.
>
> Teach perfection but accept that the coat will not fit all who pass. That's
> why the pass mark is not 100%. And, even when teaching perfection, it is a
> wise instructor who allows a student to diverge on a navex - to see how
> quickly the student will identify the problem then use training to resolve
> it.
You seem to be missing the plain simple fact that creating a prevention
mindset in a pilot allows for a learning curve through error. The trick
is to make those errors in training and not afterward. You want the
student to learn during the training process. It's here the student
should be solving problems and correcting errors.
Please understand that a pilot can indeed encounter errors after
training has been completed, and a pilot will indeed learn from these
errors and go on as a wiser pilot. This is all part of a never ending
learning curve that should follow a properly trained pilot throughout
his/her career.
There is nothing improper in learning from an error. What's improper is
preparing a pilot to function as a pilot thinking that the errors he/she
will encounter during their flying career will be correctable. The fact
is that any error encountered while flying an airplane can easily be the
last error a pilot will have to deal with, so this is why the good CFI
stresses prevention over correction.
>
> That is the point I am trying to get across. That and the fact that the
> question posed hardly emulates real situations.
> cheers
> Brian
>
>
I think you and I should simply agree to disagree on these issues and
let it go at that.
The concept I am explaining to you is far deeper than I can cover in a
few posts and I can see we differ a great deal on how we each approach
the issue of flight instruction.
No problem. Opinion is the basis for Usenet.
My wife disagrees with me on occasion as well....but not on flight
instruction :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
SR20GOER
> SR20GOER wrote:
> You seem to be missing the plain simple fact that creating a prevention
> mindset in a pilot allows for a learning curve through error. The trick is
> to make those errors in training and not afterward. You want the student
> to learn during the training process. It's here the student should be
> solving problems and correcting errors.
> Please understand that a pilot can indeed encounter errors after training
> has been completed, and a pilot will indeed learn from these errors and go
> on as a wiser pilot. This is all part of a never ending learning curve
> that should follow a properly trained pilot throughout his/her career.
> There is nothing improper in learning from an error. What's improper is
> preparing a pilot to function as a pilot thinking that the errors he/she
> will encounter during their flying career will be correctable. The fact is
> that any error encountered while flying an airplane can easily be the last
> error a pilot will have to deal with, so this is why the good CFI stresses
> prevention over correction.
>
Dudley
Fact is 60 to 80% of accidents and incidents are a result of aircrew
performance.
The work of Reason and Hawkins has examined the systems and errors.
Threat error management is designed to have pilots recognise and fix slips,
lapses and mistakes BEFORE they become irrecoverable.
The fourth - violation - is not so easy because of the deliberate mindset.
The recent Lockhart River coroner report is germane.
> I think you and I should simply agree to disagree on these issues and let
> it go at that.
> The concept I am explaining to you is far deeper than I can cover in a few
> posts and I can see we differ a great deal on how we each approach the
> issue of flight instruction.
> No problem. Opinion is the basis for Usenet.
> My wife disagrees with me on occasion as well....but not on flight
> instruction :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
I think you feel we are disagreeing re "instruction".
What I am saying is that instruction is the beginning of the learning
process not the totality and that ALL pilots WILL make mistakes.
And what I am still saying is that the exam question lacked relevance.
The reason here in Oz we have all the "after market" seminars is because the
regulatory training syllabus and exam concentrate on the days of rag and
string aircraft with donkey engines, and questions of irrelevance rather
than many of the things that will really kill one.
Some of the comment I have used above is from the Australian Safety
Foundation "Pilot Proficiency Program" - some 7 books designed to fill the
recognised gaps and likely shortly to be a requirement by some hirers and a
discount by some insurers. Statistics show that pilots who participate in
recurrent training programs such as this or the FAA program have a better
safety record. Therefore, somehow the existing machine is churning out
pilots who do not meet your and my criteria without such top up action.
cheers
brian
Dudley Henriques
approach to the problem where I disagree.
The same facts apply either way. We can go back and forth forever and
not disagree for example that training never ends for a pilot.....and
that instruction is merely the beginning of a lifetime of learning. We
agree that errors will occur and that errors have to be handled and
learned from. It's the bringing into the cockpit of the "classroom
approach" to teaching where we disagree.
I know for example,that when entering a low altitude slow roll I can
make a mistake. I also know that if I make that mistake I will be
killed. All my training and my "ATTITUDES and HABIT PATTERNS" have been
developed toward PREVENTING that error from occurring. If I took off to
perform that slow roll after having been trained within the concept that
accepts that errors will occur and that what I have to do is correct one
when it happens, then learn from it so it won't happen again again, I'd
be one dead display pilot the first time this happens.
I can think of hundreds of like scenarios that apply not only to display
pilots but to ordinary weekend pilots as well.
I'm sorry, but this is one CFI who will never approach the flight
training problem by allowing a student to form an ATTITUDE about flying
that accepts error as a constant companion and something that can be
used as a learning tool when it happens. In my opinion it's an
instructor's prime responsibility to insure that pilots develop the
lowest tolerance for error humanly possible to achieve during the time
that instructor is exposed to a pilot. Pilots can't afford the luxury of
using errors as learning experiences. This is crap better left in a
classroom and not an attitude compatible with aviation.
The only attitude about error you need as a pilot is to know that errors
can kill you and the people in your airplane who have entrusted their
lives to you. It's fine that you know errors will occur, and it's fine
that you will learn from any error you commit that you survive to learn
from. But if you begin a career as a pilot after being trained by a CFI
who has taught you that error is unavoidable and that when you commit an
error all you need to do is correct it and learn from it, you have been
exposed to a CFI that has never worked for me :-)
Be advised at this point that I am perfectly amenable to the two of us
dropping this issue at this point. I have no desire whatsoever to change
your opinion on this issue and I accept the fact that we totally
disagree and furthermore will probably never agree on this issue.
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Michael Ash
> Real life does not work that way. All life tends to be a series of learning
> and corrective actions, and accepts that 50% of people will be below the
> average. What educators forget is that their job is to raise the average
> not educate the ablest.
Perhaps I misread this somehow but I must strongly object to this
sentiment.
This attitude is a great part of why I was miserable throughout primary
and secondary school. I am in the category of "ablest". I don't say it to
brag, it's just a simple fact based off of grades and class position. I
would guess that many people on this group are similar, based on the
pilots I know in real life.
The problem with this attitude is that the entire class is stuck going
over things that the brightest students already know or understood
quickly. Being forced to go to an institution of learning only to spend
90% of your time *not* learning anything is extremely frustrating.
Meanwhile the bottom of the class is not getting the extra attention they
need and fall further behind with each lesson. Educators are charged with
*all* of their students, and should try to impart knowledge to everyone,
whether the "ablest", the average, or the bottom rung.
Many individual educators knew this and tried to do something different
but the system as a whole was geared toward "raising the average" and so
they were doomed to failure.
Then suddenly I hit college and there was a massive change. Here was an
institution that was actually designed for learning! The system was no
longer raising the average, it was discovering and working with individual
talent and filtering out those who didn't belong. As a result, for the
first time in my life, I actually liked school.
This attitude is particularly ridiculous when it comes to flight
instruction. Much of what a CFI does is inherently one-on-one, and most of
the time he does the rest one-on-one too. There is absolutely no reason a
CFI cannot tailor his lesson to the individual student at hand. A typical
"raising the average" will have the student performing ten stalls in
exactly the same way because that's what the cirriculum says to do, even
though he understood the principle on the first try and performed the
maneuver perfectly on the second. Or it will have the student performing
ten stalls because that's what the cirriculum says to do, even though this
particular student is having a rough time and needs more.
Fortunately every CFI I've worked with has had the proper attitude, and
has tried to educate *me*, not raise some mythical average. Indeed there
is no reason not to do this, because the CFI works with one student at a
time, and has no group to try to keep together.
I suspect that almost all CFIs will work this way simply because a person
without the flexibility of mind to do this will almost certainly lack the
flexibility of mind to be a good pilot.
That said, I do agree with "a series of corrective actions", and I think
this is really just a terminology difference. I think any good instructor
will realize that the best way to avoid errors is not to fly by some giant
rulebook, but to constantly scan for errors and correct them before they
happen.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Peter Dohm
"hettingr" <maggie.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188691738....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
At some time in the past, all of the actual questions were first seen when
you sat for the test and; according to legend, ground schools routinely
asked for each of their students to attempt to remember at least one
question which was on the test they had taken. In that manner, they were
increasingly able to "teach to the test."
I have long forgotten the process that went on to attempt to control the
"leaks" of information, but eventually the FAA "gave up" and adopted a much
longer series of questions from which the questions for each standard length
test (that an applicant would actually use) were selected in a quasi-random
manner. (I may not have the terminology exactly right; but you get the
idea.)
In theory, that allowed them to simply publish all of the questions--and the
result would be as though the espionage had never occurred in the first
place. Hypothetically, it would even seem reasonable that the pilot
education process should even improve--since all of the preparation material
would have to be covered multiple times and in multiple ways.
The number of questions were really not enough to prevent simple
memorization, but may have been enough to demand a reasonable level of
knowledge as part of the process. I don't know how well that system
initially worked, nor how well it currently works, but it is now fairly easy
to adjust the mathematical questions so that the numbers can not have been
memorized and also such that the sequence of correct and incorrect choices
will vary in a quasi-random manner. Much of this has been part of a trend
in certification exams, and not confined to the FAA.
I hope this helps.
Peter
Peter Dohm
> As far as the practicality of the question goes, how often does one plan
to
> be at a point half an hour away at a critical time? Most of us look for
the
> most efficient altitude (wind and vector) and best power or best economy
to
> suit our aircraft hire rate and our intentions.
> Brian
>
>
>
readily to mind:
1) Any crossing of an ADIZ boundary is planned and announced some time in
advance, so that a confirmation of progress to an intermediate waypoint and
an adjustment of speed is an obvious application of this math problem, and
2) There is a standard, though infrequent IFR situation in which an
enroute might give a clearance ammendment that might sound something like:
"TWIN CESSNA (YOUR #), WE ARE METERING TRAFFIC,
CROSS (INTERSECTION) AFTER (Z-TIME) OR HOLD
NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION."
Discalimer: I am not a current airman, and was not instrument rated, so the
phrasing may be either obsolete or incorrect.
Peter
john
I took my NAV written last year and the question was composed such
that if you got the first bit wrong then the rest would be wrong as
well possibly loosing 5 marks out of 25.
S Green
might actually fail the exam :-)
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:17q5gw3spwvtp.1...@40tude.net...
S Green
"john" <jo...@you.com> wrote in message
news:2luld31mba43iep6j...@4ax.com...
It is worth adding that 8 separate exams have to be taken in the UK for
private pilot, all with a 75% pass mark.
RST Engineering
used the FOI act to get the actual questions was that the answers were 136
knots, 137 knots, and 138 knots. Use an E6B and you get one answer. Do it
with paper and pencil to one decimal point accuracy you get another answer.
Use a (then newfangled) four function calculator (add, subtract, multiply,
divide) to five decimal point accuracy you get a third answer.
THAT was patently unfair but it was "the way it was" for a couple of dozen
years. We simply drilled the correct answer into them rather than the
reason. Wrong? Perhaps, but it wasn't right to make the answer a tossup
either.
Jim
--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford
"S Green" <stevenos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7YidnRMC4-1OtUbb...@bt.com...
SR20GOER
"Peter Dohm" <left...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:DFBCi.31500$mp6....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
For IFR no argument, part of the later training to get it, but for a novice
PPL not a likely scenario.
Crossing boundaries here is more a request for a clearance with a time
estimate if requested - but the estimate varied as needed.
In fact there is quite a bit of holding orbits conducted even for IFR -
rather than time on target - when ATC are busy due to the fluid situation.
cheers
Brian
SR20GOER
"Michael Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
news:11887375...@nfs-db1.segnet.com...
> SR20GOER <ralco...@aopa.com.au> wrote:
>> Real life does not work that way. All life tends to be a series of
>> learning
>> and corrective actions, and accepts that 50% of people will be below the
>> average. What educators forget is that their job is to raise the average
>> not educate the ablest.
>
> Perhaps I misread this somehow but I must strongly object to this
> sentiment.
>
> This attitude is a great part of why I was miserable throughout primary
> and secondary school. I am in the category of "ablest". I don't say it to
> brag, it's just a simple fact based off of grades and class position. I
> would guess that many people on this group are similar, based on the
> pilots I know in real life.
>
> The problem with this attitude is that the entire class is stuck going
> over things that the brightest students already know or understood
> quickly. Being forced to go to an institution of learning only to spend
> 90% of your time *not* learning anything is extremely frustrating.
> Meanwhile the bottom of the class is not getting the extra attention they
> need and fall further behind with each lesson. Educators are charged with
> *all* of their students, and should try to impart knowledge to everyone,
> whether the "ablest", the average, or the bottom rung.
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software
Michael
It is probably insufficiently clear as I mentioned it as a generality and I
think you have answered it anyway.
The prime job of the educators is to get the best result for the majority -
thus raise the average below which 50% will still end up but with a higher
norm.
Educating the ablest is not the prime task. That is a sub-task to identify
the ablest and set specific educational processes in place that allow then
to be nurtured - without disadvantaging the other 98% of the students - or
whatever % is defined by deciding what the "ablest" group is.
Thus both groups exist in harmony and achieve the desired goals.
I'm surprised at your bad experience. There are many books for educators
written on how to do it - one example being (surprise) "Educating the
Ablest" - obviously either not read, comprehended, or adopted in those
involved with your education. In Oz one way to stream your kids is
obviously to send them to private schools with better resource and inventory
than the public system, or to get a tutor. But even within the public
system there are matters like mentoring or allocating the ablest to higher
level classes etc.
Aviation is different because it is a 1:1 relationship therefore the
instructor will match his/her teaching to the individual needs and speeds
and ensure constant feedback to ensure that the teaching equals learning.
cheers
brian
Michael Ash
> I'm surprised at your bad experience. There are many books for educators
> written on how to do it - one example being (surprise) "Educating the
> Ablest" - obviously either not read, comprehended, or adopted in those
> involved with your education. In Oz one way to stream your kids is
> obviously to send them to private schools with better resource and inventory
> than the public system, or to get a tutor. But even within the public
> system there are matters like mentoring or allocating the ablest to higher
> level classes etc.
Wandering rapidly off topic here, oh well...
I'm surprised you're surprised. I've talked to a lot of people with
similar experiences. Perhaps Australia has some kind of secret sauce we
don't have in the US.
Private schools are not automatically better. I went to a private school
for six years and while I would wager that it was better, it still posed
many of the same problems. Tutors do nothing, because in general the
system is too inflexible for them to work properly, so you end up having
the tutor in *addition* to all of the junk during regular hours, which
doesn't reduce the part where the system sends the constant message of
"learning is unpleasant".
Mentoring can be helpful, as well as allocating the ablest to higher level
classes. I took basically every high-level class my school offered, and no
doubt it helped, but not enough to give me a good impression of the
overall experience. A major problem is that when you live in the middle of
nowhere resources are limited, and the quality of high level classes
becomes likewise limited.
> Aviation is different because it is a 1:1 relationship therefore the
> instructor will match his/her teaching to the individual needs and speeds
> and ensure constant feedback to ensure that the teaching equals learning.
I'm glad to say we agree on this. Learning to fly has been one of the
great learning experiences I've had, partly because it's so hands-on (and
enjoyable!) and partly because of this one-on-one relationship.
--
Headwind
Dallas
> They were exactly what the answer would
> be if you were using an improper method and figured out the problem the
> wrong way using that bad method.
They have a bunch of what I would call "sloppy traps".
For instance they will ask you to figure an ETE requiring you to find and
measure distances on their charts and plug in all the data. The trap comes
in the last sentence of the problem, "Add 3 minutes for time to climb."
By the time you've invested 4 minutes going through all the steps and
arriving at an answer of 38 minutes, you have a tendency to find the 38
minutes answer on the test, pick it, feel like a hero and move on.
Of course, the answer is 41 minutes because you forgot to add the 3
minutes.
DOH! Caught in the sloppy trap!
I consider this a valid testing technique. If a pilot has a tendency to
not pay attention to all the details he probably deserves a lower grade.
--
Dallas
Dudley Henriques
ability to solve these problems. The multiple choice format puts an
element of luck into the equation that might just get someone through
the test who should have failed.
Formatting the test in this manner is nothing more than a mechanism to
help eliminate this factor.
The bottom line is that in flying, there is no fair and unfair. You are
either right or you are wrong. If you are wrong, or if you "make a
mistake" as another poster in this thread has indicated as inevitable
and something to be learned from as you move on, you can end up hurting
yourself and other people as well.
I agree with the trap method of testing.
--
Dudley Henriques
Peter Dohm
I agree, and the authors of every certification exam that I have ever seen
appear to agree as well--regardless of the subject being tested.
In addition to the simple issue of "checklist" thoroughness mentioned above,
the core principal in most of the mathematical traps is this. You can
multiply and divide all day long without regard to the sequence, or you can
add and subtract all day long without regard to the sequence; but any time
that you add or subtract and also multiply or divide, then the sequence is
critical.
Peter
Mark T. Dame
> I had been teaching college for about two years when I took the FOI. During
> my prep, my (still in my library) margin notes in the study guide were
> largely "WTF??"
I have no formal teaching experience and my comments were exactly the same.
-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:md...@mfm.com>
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"The world market for computers is approximately five units."
-- Thomas J. Watson, President, IBM Corporation, 1950.
Mark T. Dame
> The FAA used to play little mind games with people taking the written.
Interestingly, the FAA's approved teaching techniques (the FOI, AKA the
red book, AKA "Aviation Instructor's Handbook") specifically says not to
do that.
Dudley Henriques
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> The FAA used to play little mind games with people taking the written.
>
> Interestingly, the FAA's approved teaching techniques (the FOI, AKA the
> red book, AKA "Aviation Instructor's Handbook") specifically says not to
> do that.
>
>
> -m
Aviation Instructor's Handbook on page 6-11 they state that "it's
considered ethical to deceive the student with incorrect answers on
written tests"
You will find this on 6-11 on the left side middle paragraph
--
Dudley Henriques
BillJ
> I had been teaching college for about two years when I took the FOI. During
> my prep, my (still in my library) margin notes in the study guide were
> largely "WTF??"
>
>
If you are a college teacher or certified school teacher, you don't have
to take it (FOI)
Brian
Check out a this idea at a friend of mines Web Site.
The 7 Golden Rules of Instruction.
http://www.kpflight.com/golden1.htm
Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Dallas
> Use an E6B and you get one answer. Do it
> with paper and pencil to one decimal point accuracy you get another answer.
Yes!.. and guess what? They are still at it. I found 4 questions that
using a Sporty's Electronic E6B gave a wrong answer to.
The choice of answers was:
A. 230
B. 212
C. 208
Using a Sporty's Electronic E6B and plugging in the exact numbers I got:
198.3
Very disturbing.
--
Dallas
hettingr
> Check out a this idea at a friend of mines Web Site.
>
> The 7 Golden Rules of Instruction.
>
> http://www.kpflight.com/golden1.htm
>
Good reading. As a student who can identify with "Amelia," it's
fascinating and instructive to have that kind of insight into the CFI/
learning process.
Mark T. Dame
Well look at that. The FAA contradicting itself. (-:
That same page also says "Do not permit one question to reveal, or
depend on, the correct answer to another question." (Part of the
message I responded to mentioned that.)
The questions that always tick me off, though are the ones that answers
like:
a. 5 SM
b. 7 NM
c. 5 NM
with c. as the correct answer. If you don't take your time, you would
answer a. even though you know c. is the correct answer. That's not
about knowledge, it's about trying to trip up the student. I know, you
can argue that it's testing whether or not the student is using the
correct units, but I think more people would miss it because they didn't
take their time rather than because they got the units wrong. And that
breaks the characteristic of validity (and possibly reliability and
discrimination).
I'm just glad my checkride didn't involved getting into the FOI in depth.
-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:md...@mfm.com>
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"The heart of the jungle now well behind them, the three intrepid
explorers entered the spleen."
-- The Far Side, Gary Larson
Dudley Henriques
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> The FAA can indeed be confusing as hell :-)) I just looked in the
>> Aviation Instructor's Handbook on page 6-11 they state that "it's
>> considered ethical to deceive the student with incorrect answers on
>> written tests"
>> You will find this on 6-11 on the left side middle paragraph
>
> Well look at that. The FAA contradicting itself. (-:
>
> That same page also says "Do not permit one question to reveal, or
> depend on, the correct answer to another question." (Part of the
> message I responded to mentioned that.)
>
> The questions that always tick me off, though are the ones that answers
> like:
>
> a. 5 SM
> b. 7 NM
> c. 5 NM
>
> with c. as the correct answer. If you don't take your time, you would
> answer a. even though you know c. is the correct answer. That's not
> about knowledge, it's about trying to trip up the student. I know, you
> can argue that it's testing whether or not the student is using the
> correct units, but I think more people would miss it because they didn't
> take their time rather than because they got the units wrong. And that
> breaks the characteristic of validity (and possibly reliability and
> discrimination).
Not really. Pilots have to learn to think at a deeper level than
ordinary people.
Pilots belong to that group of people who do things normally that a
normal person might consider abnormal. (Try this one after 2 Gin and
Tonics :-)
Race drivers, mountain climbers, divers, and people in hundreds of other
dangerous occupations and endeavors are also in this group of people
that exist in an environment where the slightest unnoticed or missed
detail can be deadly.
This is the reason why these tests throw these little "zingers" at you.
The test in part at least, wants to verify that you are capable of
operating on this deeper level of mindset.
From the first day you begin training as a pilot, a GOOD CFI will begin
the process of teaching you to think on this level. By the time you take
the written, you should be well into being able to deal with noticing
detail at a much higher degree of accuracy than the average person.
If you are not at this level, the CFI has failed you. It's that simple!
You simply can NOT fly an airplane safely unless your mind is capable of
dealing with minute details like noticing that a speed has been given in
mph or kts.
Hope this helps a bit.
--
Dudley Henriques
Richard Carpenter
> There was one question on the written test that is different from any other
> and this is it. I got it right, but it took many, many minutes of fumbling
> with the E6B to figure out all the steps to bring it home. I'm pretty
> comfortable saying it's the most complex problem on the PP test.
>
> On a cross-country flight, point A is crossed at 1500 hours and the plan is
> to reach point B at 1530 hours. Use the following information to determine
> the indicated airspeed required to reach point B on schedule.
>
> Distance between A and B 70 NM
> Forecast wind 310 at 15 kts
> Pressure altitude 8,000 ft
> Ambient temperature -10 C
> True course 270
>
> The required indicated airspeed would be approximately
> A. 126 knots.
> B. 137 knots.
> C. 152 knots.
>
I'm suddenly afraid....very afraid. o_O
--
Rich
Dallas
> I'm suddenly afraid....very afraid.
:-)
Fear not. It's just a matter of taking it one small bite at a time.
A journey of a thousand miles is accomplished one step at a time,
Grasshopper.
--
Dallas
Jim Macklin
only about 5 tests for the private and 5 for the commercial.
They were actual flights made by the FAA inspectors and
reduced to a series of questions about that flight. All the
available data and forecasts that were available were
presented in the back of the test book.
Every question was one that should be answered before and
during any flight. An error on a real flight will get you
lost, the same error on the written just cost you points.
But those tests had little flexibility and were hard to
update and grade. Computers and a lawsuit of secrecy made
the FAA change the format.
My experience with flight and mechanics school, from student
and instructor, too many students try to learn the test and
not the principles involved.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:u5GdnRXhP8N2RkTb...@rcn.net...
| Bob Noel wrote:
| > In article <e4Cdna9BipoDLETb...@rcn.net>,
| > Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
| >
| >> The FAA used to play little mind games with people
taking the written.
| >> You got multiple choice to choose from all right, but
the answers that
| >> were wrong weren't just wrong. They were exactly what
the answer would
| >> be if you were using an improper method and figured out
the problem the
| >> wrong way using that bad method.
| >
| > why is this bad? Someone who uses the wrong method to
try to answer
| > a multiple-guess question SHOULD get it wrong.
| >
| It's not "bad" in the sense you are apparently
interpreting it's
| meaning. There's nothing wrong with formatting a test in
this manner. In
| fact, I for one would seriously consider this format had I
personally
| been assigned the task of formatting these tests.
| The term "bad" only means bad as the improper answer is
opposed to the
| right answer. You can substitute the word "wrong" if you
like and it
| makes the context more understandable.
|
| --
| Dudley Henriques
Dallas
> too many students try to learn the test and
> not the principles involved.
Completely true. I discovered that ground school/book work and studying
for the test are two completely different endeavors.
Reading the book cover to cover will not necessarily assure you of passing
the test, you have to "study the test".
Unfortunately, you can just "study the test" and pass with a good grade and
still not know many important principles.
--
Dallas
Jim Macklin
don't study the test that you will take.
If you know ICE-T or how to use a compass correction card,
or how to read, speak and understand the English language
[instructors must also be fluent], you can pass the
knowledge test.
But if you "study" the test you probably will not learn the
procedures needed to solve a problem that has some
variation.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:e4jktfgl310n$.uigsi5lpofp6.dlg@40tude.net...