Passed the IR written today...what a ridiculous test.

Dear God - how can one possibly fly in modern airspace without being able to calculate distance from a VOR? And how can they call it a legitimate test without requiring one to demonstrate the knowledge of how to fly a radio range?

Sigh. One wonders what it must be like to wander the halls of the FAA.....
 
Having BTDT for almost 40 years, thankfully my last FAA written is long gone. (I hope) What you have is a bunch of government bureaucrats that are tasked with coming up with these examinations, who are "experts" in one area (perfectionist) and they are determined to show everyone just how smart they are...thus poorly worded questions that don't test a persons real world knowledge. When I first read about the change from PTS to ACS standards, I thought that maybe this was an attempt to go real world...but I forgot who I was dealing with. At least now, you have King and other ground schools, videos etc. and exam guides that give you the correct answers...I had the old ACME books that gave you the question and three answers...yes, you had to actually study but that is not the real purpose of these tests...it is not testing your knowledge, it is testing your reading ability.

Two real world examples of these FAA experts....
FAA Inspector, who I personally respected because I knew he had been a real world pilot for many years, but his expertise was knowing all the various modes of the Terrain Warning System...so his orals were centered on that. My reply to him when asked what warning I would get if such and such was happening, was, "I don't know, if the warning goes off I do not wait to analyze the source of the warning but go into the proper procedure for keeping my butt alive...he just smiled and said "Ok, next question".

The other example of the FAA "expert"...Attended the FAA High Altitude Chamber in OKC. Class was mainly private pilot types and a smattering of actual high altitude pilots...FAA Instructor - you know the type - hair cut with bangs (greasy), pants six inches too short, pocket pencil protector etc. was teaching High Altitude Physiology. He made a comment about blood boiling above 60000 feet and you should never fly on the Concorde because you will die. Cue me in now...smart aleck airline pilot with years of high altitude flying...and a dislike for the Feds...I raised my hand (my partner was sitting next to me groaned) "Sir, you say that if you are flying on the Concorde at 60000 feet and there is an explosive decompression that my blood will boil and that I shouldn't fly on it? He smiled and said "Yes"...to which I replied "then why did you certify it? Break time
 
tawood said:
Well, on to the check ride!
I passed today with a 92%, but I have to say, that IR written test is not a knowledge test, its a debacle disguised as a test. I'm a perfectionist, so like most things in my life, I over prepared, and going into the test really I felt I knew the material down pat. For what ever reason, some things that give most others problems I found easy, like holding pattern entries. Other things that should of been easy, like the HSI, took a long time to sink in, but eventually I felt comfortable with them too. Then I take the test, and the hardest part I had with the test was just simply trying to interpret the horribly worded questions. I do not feel the FAA is trying to test your IFR knowledge, but instead just trying to trick you with stupid situations or poor wording.
I also found it was not at all what I expected. Although I think each test is a somewhat random sampling of questions from the overall knowledge (and I realize that everyone's test will be different) I was quite surprised by the number of questions that required looking at diagrams from the test supplement...so many, in fact, that I went back through my test and counted: 41 out of 60. I was also surprised how much "carry over" there was from the private pilot's test, as my test had time/distance/wind, radio phraseology, and other "VFR" type questions. I'm not complaining about the diagrams or VFR questions, but just making an observation.
As I mentioned above, I'm a perfectionist, and I over studied. I actually used a bunch of methods/different methods to prepare: Books, videos, an accelerated ground class, and an online class. For help to those getting ready to take it, I'd say (at least for me) the books were the most helpful...I read the ASA Instrument Flight Manual, and the FAA Instrument Handbook. The least helpful (again, at least for me) was the accelerated ground class and the online class. Both classes were still teaching "old style", requesting you repeatedly take their tests...only when you take the actual test you find out that ALMOST NONE of their questions are on the IR test.
The videos I used were Sportys, and although their "questions" at the end of each chapter are old school, their video at least seemed to provide complete information.
Click to expand...

If you were a perfectionist and over studied, wouldn't you have scored 100%?
 
Very happy I stumbled upon this thread. I would also consider myself a perfectionist (frankly, I think a lot of pilots, especially IFR pilots would say the same) and I've been studying for the IFR written heavily over the last several weeks using Kings and Sheppard. I am absolutely amazed at how "old school" this stuff is, at least in the Kings course, and how much of a carry over from private pilot stuff there is. I expected that most of the coursework would be studying approach plates, IFR charts, managing enroute deviations, picking up IFR clearances in various situations, you know the stuff a VFR pilots assumes IFR training would be like, etc. etc... but rather, I would say 2/3 of the course is very basic stuff that A.) I learned in PPL and B.) still use on my cross country flights

Do most instrument candidates (IE, VFR pilots) forget the basics of VOR navigation? So many questions and "milk this dead cow" videos and quizzes were about interpreting what the VOR needle means in various scenarios

tawood said:
I passed today with a 92%, but I have to say, that IR written test is not a knowledge test, its a debacle disguised as a test. I'm a perfectionist, so like most things in my life, I over prepared, and going into the test really I felt I knew the material down pat. For what ever reason, some things that give most others problems I found easy, like holding pattern entries. Other things that should of been easy, like the HSI, took a long time to sink in, but eventually I felt comfortable with them too. Then I take the test, and the hardest part I had with the test was just simply trying to interpret the horribly worded questions. I do not feel the FAA is trying to test your IFR knowledge, but instead just trying to trick you with stupid situations or poor wording.
Click to expand...
Totally the same. The approach plates, holds, charts, etc., all seemed to make "logical sense" to me however things that maybe should be simple had me rewatching the videos a couple of times. I also found that some of the coursework's "helpful hints and tricks" only served to confuse me more.. I think you're better off understanding something than trying to memorize a trick..

tawood said:
I was also surprised how much "carry over" there was from the private pilot's test, as my test had time/distance/wind, radio phraseology, and other "VFR" type questions. I'm not complaining about the diagrams or VFR questions, but just making an observation.
Click to expand...
Yes. When they took out the E6B and started doing wind calculations and time and distance stuff I almost fell out of my chair

**I guess the reason this surprised me so much is that E6B and VOR navigation is pretty basic stuff, you don't have to be in the clouds to be comfortable using the nav radios in your plane.. especially so because a lot of class B VFR transition routes involve tracking VOR radials, etc. And yes, an E6B may look daunting to a non pilot, but it has the directions on how to use it RIGHT ON IT

Not really a rant (well sort of), but I was panicking for a minute that I was using some ancient study material.. since, you know, it is not 1985 anymore. Assumed there would be a lot more rules and regs and policy questions on there, not just a rehash of VFR navigation basics
 
Mistake Not... said:
I think both are massive overkill and designed as speed bumps
Click to expand...
I think a lot of non-school exams are like that. My wife had to take both a federal and state licensing test so she could practice psychology in CA (shameless plug) and after undergrad, masters, doctorette, several hundred hours of training and internship, etc. the exams were pretty ridiculous and expensive... I didn't take it personally but my impression was that it was designed as a speed bump and a way to collect additional fees, etc. That's why this IFR training material surprises me, I would assume a written test is prefect real estate for policy and rules and regs questions, kind of stuff like "can a controller clear you if X" and "are you legally able to do X given Y" etc. etc. not just figuring out what a VOR needle means and how to track a radial

flyersfan31 said:
Dear God - how can one possibly fly in modern airspace without being able to calculate distance from a VOR? And how can they call it a legitimate test without requiring one to demonstrate the knowledge of how to fly a radio range?
Click to expand...
I totally agree... but that's stuff we covered in VFR PPL stuff and things you should stay proficient on... especially in busy airspace. I have had socal give me instructions to track radials before when navigating on flight following in the LA area.. and have received VFR distance instructions as well. Maybe everyone these days just plugs that stuff into the 430 or Foreflight, but I mean being able to use a DME, figures out groundspeed and time (for fuel calcs) should be basic stuff
 
Test taking woes? It was fun back in the day when you could simply memorize all the answers in a matter of two or three days.
 
spiderweb said:
Test taking woes? It was fun back in the day when you could simply memorize all the answers in a matter of two or three days.
Click to expand...
For those who think that spending two or three days memorizing is fun. :dunno:
 
One of these days I'll do the IR (hopefully one of these days in this year) and I'm going to have to completely relearn VORs. Spent a decade flying an aircraft that didn't have one. That said, I don't recall them being overly difficult.
 
steingar said:
One of these days I'll do the IR (hopefully one of these days in this year) and I'm going to have to completely relearn VORs. Spent a decade flying an aircraft that didn't have one. That said, I don't recall them being overly difficult.
Click to expand...
They aren't.
 
Well, they are and they aren't.

I mean, fundamentally, the equipment is measuring an angle. That's all you get, unless it has DME. But for now, just assume 'angle'. That's all you have. There IS NO OTHER INFORMATION. Simple, right?

I still don't have a good mental model for quickly answering questions like "Turn to intercept the xxx radial, 30 deg intercept, shortest turn direction". I can figure it out, but I have to think about it. Every time. I can answer simple ones, like "where are you relative to VIH? Tune to get a centered FROM indication. Want to track to it? Centered TO indication. But the more complicated scenarios... I'd rather just look at a map.

Yes, yes. If anyone is still reading this thread, this will trigger a chorus of "It's easy", "I have no problem", "You just have to practice".

Screw that. VORs (and the primitive electromechanical display) need to die.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Well, they are and they aren't.

I mean, fundamentally, the equipment is measuring an angle. That's all you get, unless it has DME. But for now, just assume 'angle'. That's all you have. There IS NO OTHER INFORMATION. Simple, right?

I still don't have a good mental model for quickly answering questions like "Turn to intercept the xxx radial, 30 deg intercept, shortest turn direction". I can figure it out, but I have to think about it. Every time. I can answer simple ones, like "where are you relative to VIH? Tune to get a centered FROM indication. Want to track to it? Centered TO indication. But the more complicated scenarios... I'd rather just look at a map.

Yes, yes. If anyone is still reading this thread, this will trigger a chorus of "It's easy", "I have no problem", "You just have to practice".

Screw that. VORs (and the primitive electromechanical display) need to die.
Click to expand...
I do feel your pain. I guess it might be a matter of attitude. I always liked these problems, and thought of them as fun puzzles. (I know, I'm a complete nerd.) But it is also true that, as you say, the more you do them, the better and faster you get. Nothing wrong with thinking about them to get the right answer!
 
I can probably get proficient at any skill, but VORs are ancient tech. It's unlikely we'd design them today if we were starting over.

For the time (1950s?) fine. But the only purpose for them remaining that's at all persuasive is as a ground based back up to GPS. And even then, they suck. Bring back LORAN. Better, implement eDLoran http://gpsworld.com/edloran-the-next-gen-loran/

Loran is ground based, jamming resistant, and more accurate than VORs. It would also drive a moving map display just like GPS.

NDBs are all but gone. VORs should be next.
 
spiderweb said:
I do feel your pain. I guess it might be a matter of attitude. I always liked these problems, and thought of them as fun puzzles.
Click to expand...
I agree. The "match illustration A with the correct plane orientation in figure B" is a fun exercise to me.. but like @Mistake Not... points out it does require some mental wizardry for me to orient myself based on the VOR and then apply it to the illustration

What I hated on the tested (just took and passed) were questions that just required rote memorization of various FARs, regulations, etc. I like and prefer things that make sense, vs just committing them to memory. Maybe that's why I was very good at physics but absolute dogsh** when it came to organic chemistry. Oh well

Mistake Not... said:
For the time (1950s?) fine. But the only purpose for them remaining that's at all persuasive is as a ground based back up to GPS. And even then, they suck.
Click to expand...
Yes...! it is an incredible esoteric system.. "at this altitude you will get obstacle clearance, but probably not nav reception, unless you are within 22nm and it is the third day of the month and the crow has cawed twice, but even then you may not get coverage if you see the little "R" flag on a waypoint" yada yada yada. Like you said, for 1950 it was "decent" but there is no way someone would purposely design a system like that today (oh, and let's not even talk about back course sensing, lol)

*I do think though we need an active backup for GPS navigation though. With the ever evolving threat of hacking, etc. it seems very reasonable to have some old school tech still alive and well. I guess the most "hack proof" system though is a mechanical INS
 
Did anyone comment that you "Passed" the exam, not that you "Past" it? If you had "Past" it, would you know its need for ridicule?
 
Mistake Not... said:
...Yes, yes. If anyone is still reading this thread, this will trigger a chorus of "It's easy", "I have no problem", "You just have to practice".

Screw that. VORs (and the primitive electromechanical display) need to die.
Click to expand...
Just be glad that NDBs are being decommissioned! :eek:
 
Tantalum said:
I

What I hated on the tested (just took and passed) were questions that just required rote memorization of various FARs, regulations, etc. I like and prefer things that make sense, vs just committing them to memory.
Click to expand...

Frost the thickness of medium sandpaper on the wings can:
  1. Reduce lift by as much as 50% and increase drag by as much as 50%
  2. Reduce lift by as much as 25% and increase drag by as much as 25%
  3. Reduce lift by as much as 30% and increase drag by as much as 40%
OK, what practical application to operational utility can that possibly have?
"Hey Bob, this wing's got sandpaper-like frost on it. It'll increase drag and reduce lift by 50%."
"Actually Joe, it's 40% and 30%."
"Oh in that case let's launch!"

Same with...

Maximum downdrafts in a microburst can be as strong as:
  1. 8000FPM
  2. 7000FPM
  3. 6000FPM
For whom is 6001FPM the threshold for a "go elsewhere and wait it out" decision?
 
Are those actual questions from the test?
 
asicer said:
Frost the thickness of medium sandpaper on the wings can:
  1. Reduce lift by as much as 50% and increase drag by as much as 50%
  2. Reduce lift by as much as 25% and increase drag by as much as 25%
  3. Reduce lift by as much as 30% and increase drag by as much as 40%
OK, what practical application to operational utility can that possibly have?
"Hey Bob, this wing's got sandpaper-like frost on it. It'll increase drag and reduce lift by 50%."
"Actually Joe, it's 40% and 30%."
"Oh in that case let's launch!"

Same with...

Maximum downdrafts in a microburst can be as strong as:
  1. 8000FPM
  2. 7000FPM
  3. 6000FPM
For whom is 6001FPM the threshold for a "go elsewhere and wait it out" decision?
Click to expand...
I was in a meeting last night (with John and Martha King participating, btw) where it was mentioned that there is a strong push to get rid of questions like the Frost question above. Or questions like under these conditions the take off distance required it a) 1602ft, b)1634ft c)1651 feet.

The argument for getting rid of them is not only are they pretty useless questions, but they also promote that idea that it might be ok to take off if you have 34 feet more runway than you need, or that if it is only sandpaper like frost a 40% reduction might be OK. Obviously both bad idea’s but we shouldn’t be asking questions that make it sound like it could be ok.

But it is the government it will take 10 to 100 times longer to get it fixed than it should and will introduce 10 more issues when they do it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Palmpilot said:
Are those actual questions from the test?
Click to expand...
In the King test bank, yes. I vaguely recall getting a variation of the 6000FPM downdraft question on the actual FAA IFR written.
 
Ravioli said:
Did anyone comment that you "Passed" the exam, not that you "Past" it? If you had "Past" it, would you know its need for ridicule?
Click to expand...
When I passed I put it in the past!

But yes, (damn voice-to-text).
 
asicer said:
Frost the thickness of medium sandpaper on the wings can:
  1. Reduce lift by as much as 50% and increase drag by as much as 50%
  2. Reduce lift by as much as 25% and increase drag by as much as 25%
  3. Reduce lift by as much as 30% and increase drag by as much as 40%
OK, what practical application to operational utility can that possibly have?
"Hey Bob, this wing's got sandpaper-like frost on it. It'll increase drag and reduce lift by 50%."
"Actually Joe, it's 40% and 30%."
"Oh in that case let's launch!"

Same with...

Maximum downdrafts in a microburst can be as strong as:
  1. 8000FPM
  2. 7000FPM
  3. 6000FPM
For whom is 6001FPM the threshold for a "go elsewhere and wait it out" decision?
Click to expand...
I was in a meeting last night (with John and Martha King participating, btw) where it was mentioned that there is a strong push to get rid of questions like the Frost question above. Or questions like under these conditions the take off distance required it a) 1602ft, b)1634ft c)1651 feet.

The argument for getting rid of them is not only are the pretty useless questions, but they also promote that idea that it is important to know that you have 34 feet more runway than you need, or that if it is only sandpaper like frost a 40% reduction might be OK.

But it is the government it will take 10 to 100 times longer to get it fixed and will introduce 10 more issues when they due it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
asicer said:
Frost the thickness of medium sandpaper on the wings can:
  1. Reduce lift by as much as 50% and increase drag by as much as 50%
  2. Reduce lift by as much as 25% and increase drag by as much as 25%
  3. Reduce lift by as much as 30% and increase drag by as much as 40%
OK, what practical application to operational utility can that possibly have?
"Hey Bob, this wing's got sandpaper-like frost on it. It'll increase drag and reduce lift by 50%."
"Actually Joe, it's 40% and 30%."
"Oh in that case let's launch!"
Click to expand...
I agree it's a lousy question, but do you know why it's in the question bank?
 
tawood said:
When I passed I put it in the past!

But yes, (damn voice-to-text).
Click to expand...
Do you have some condition that prevents you from typing?

I broke my right arm a few years back and my employer at the time got me the Dragon V-T software. I't worked much better that I would have thought.
 
I'm really late getting into this thread, but this is my take on airman knowledge testing in general: The goal is to get pilots to familiarize themselves with the universe of documentation available on the world of flying. IMHO memorizing answers or taking a course that teaches to the test is self-defeating. I am constantly surprised by the number of pilots who know nothing more than what their instructor told them verbally and what they gleaned from test prep books. Advisory Circulars? What are they? Chart Supplement (AFD) Legend pages? You mean there is a place where the airport listings are actually explained in detail?

The idea, as I understand it, is to motivate the student to look things up, because in doing so the student will be exposed to more information than the black-and-white answer being sought. I know that I can open the AIM or Aviation Weather Services to any page at random and either learn something new or be reminded of something I had forgotten. So the knowledge test is a means to an end.

Bob
 
paflyer said:
To see how well you can temporarily memorize something?
Click to expand...
Because a famous coulple's son died, one of the famous people and another son were injured, and the FAA (as an organization, not necessarily individuals) is prone toward impulsivity..."let's do something, even if it's wrong." The accident investigation included the sandpaper study, and so whoever decided we needed a written test question on the subject of frost apparently decided that was the thing to do, even if it was wrong.
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
I'm really late getting into this thread, but this is my take on airman knowledge testing in general: The goal is to get pilots to familiarize themselves with the universe of documentation available on the world of flying. IMHO memorizing answers or taking a course that teaches to the test is self-defeating. I am constantly surprised by the number of pilots who know nothing more than what their instructor told them verbally and what they gleaned from test prep books. Advisory Circulars? What are they? Chart Supplement (AFD) Legend pages? You mean there is a place where the airport listings are actually explained in detail?

The idea, as I understand it, is to motivate the student to look things up, because in doing so the student will be exposed to more information than the black-and-white answer being sought. I know that I can open the AIM or Aviation Weather Services to any page at random and either learn something new or be reminded of something I had forgotten. So the knowledge test is a means to an end.

Bob
Click to expand...
It's been so long since I've taken one, I've forgotten: Are knowledge tests open book?
 
Mistake Not... said:
I can probably get proficient at any skill, but VORs are ancient tech. It's unlikely we'd design them today if we were starting over.

For the time (1950s?) fine. But the only purpose for them remaining that's at all persuasive is as a ground based back up to GPS. And even then, they suck. Bring back LORAN. Better, implement eDLoran http://gpsworld.com/edloran-the-next-gen-loran/

Loran is ground based, jamming resistant, and more accurate than VORs. It would also drive a moving map display just like GPS.

NDBs are all but gone. VORs should be next.
Click to expand...

I would think, especially with today's computing power, VOR/DME or VOR/VOR or DME/DME RNAV would be viable for a comeback.
 
brcase said:
I was in a meeting last night (with John and Martha King participating, btw) where it was mentioned that there is a strong push to get rid of questions like the Frost question above. Or questions like under these conditions the take off distance required it a) 1602ft, b)1634ft c)1651 feet.

The argument for getting rid of them is not only are the pretty useless questions, but they also promote that idea that it is important to know that you have 34 feet more runway than you need, or that if it is only sandpaper like frost a 40% reduction might be OK.

But it is the government it will take 10 to 100 times longer to get it fixed and will introduce 10 more issues when they due it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

The FAA has been coming up with some, what I think, are bizarre and subjective risk management questions for the written lately. I'm not sure those are any better than the ones above. I know part of the reason is that the FAA is concerned with rote memorization of answers, which is why they no longer publish the test bank. But since the writtens have not been "written" for a long time, I don't know why they can't computer-generate questions with various numbers. "The temperature is X and the pressure altitude is Y, what is the density altitude?" does not seem so hard to implement rather than having 6 different questions in the bank with various numbers, which is still few enough to memorize.
 
Someone mentioned open book earlier. The written portion of Air Force check rides consist of open book and closed book exams. You get to bring your required pubs and there’s a library with all the pubs that aren’t personally required. 85% is the passing score.

My experience was the open book forced you into some obscure, but valuable information. The closed book questions were all from a Master question file that was part of your required personal pubs. Pure rote memorization, generally covering cautions, warnings, and notes, technical information, and tactics all pertinent to the airframe. Every single question references a specific paragraph somewhere in the pubs.

People can argue against rote memorization, but I personally feel that a well designed open book and closed book test with appropriately high passing scores are valuable in that it ensures knowledge of specific material. The oral portion can then focus on more grey/subjective areas that can be presented as part of a scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top