The Future of Airman Knowledge Tests - It's coming...

As I recall, the FAA was supposed to fixed the memorization problem the last change they made by creating more or different test questions.
 
Kodiak said:
As I recall, the FAA was supposed to fixed the memorization problem the last change they made by creating more or different test questions.
Click to expand...
They have been changing around the questions more frequently for the last couple of years. What they're working on now is much broader project.
 
I’ll spill the beans now ;) Some of you caught on to my shenanigans. It’s the O in Lake Superior :D

6AF38E2E-B425-4EEC-AA8C-B9942DA06E7A.jpeg
 
We do that trick with the O in “Mountains” on the DEN sectional. It’s grey.
 
Crap. Studying for the Phud quals was bad enough....6 major topics, anything was fair game. Now I gotta go thru the same crap just for a hobby?
 
MauleSkinner said:
“Anything” isn’t fair game...the ACS limits it.
Click to expand...
Anything in the collection references for the ACS is fair game. Which, for the instrument, is extensive. More than I needed for the quals.
 
murphey said:
Anything in the collection references for the ACS is fair game. Which, for the instrument, is extensive. More than I needed for the quals.
Click to expand...
No, anything in the collection that’s specified by the “knowledge”, “risk”, and “skills” elements of the ACS. Narrows it down significantly.
 
murphey said:
Anything in the collection references for the ACS is fair game. Which, for the instrument, is extensive. More than I needed for the quals.
Click to expand...
Check your mailbox. I'm working on a solution.
 
I would think self-study syllabi would be a good thing. Organize appropriate materials into logical and bite-sized chunks.
 
One thing the current system provides is the intended depth of knowledge for the different ratings. The ACS references many of the same documents, but what is tested is a subset of that material. I don’t know how this new testing scheme will prevent a private test taker from having to have ATP knowledge levels.
 
Initial Fix said:
One thing the current system provides is the intended depth of knowledge for the different ratings. The ACS references many of the same documents, but what is tested is a subset of that material. I don’t know how this new testing scheme will prevent a private test taker from having to have ATP knowledge levels.
Click to expand...
He’ll have to reference the ACS (or some commercially-developed syllabus) to find out which sunsets to/not to study.
 
WannFly said:
there is nothing stopping us from learning differently. I just couldnt wrap my head around VOR tracking until i flew it a few times. I learn by doing as well.
Click to expand...
Similarly, I learned by doing, got lost, and figured it out again for myself—no more lost. GPS wasn't an option because pink lines hadn't been invented yet. But I see no problem reading the textbook or manual and then trying it out. The majority of people are visual learners and need to see something in action to truly grasp a concept. Somewhere around 30% are able to understand something when they read it. It takes putting it into practice as part of the process. Reading about it is the first step.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top