Fox-
Sorry if that comment came off as bit pungent. It's a sore point from a long-time, war-weary CFI who's still trying to fight the good fight.
Trust me, I get you completely in that regard. Sheppard actually has some fairly well-written explanations of test questions in written form, similar to what you say about the Kings below. They don't emphasize it, but it's there nonetheless if you ask for it. And it's actually clear, coherent and well-written.
I actually think that the Private, Commercial and Instrument test banks aren't at all terrible. I'll go a step beyond that and say that I think that the FAA tests, in general, aren't -tough- enough. The tests seem to me to be designed to teach the material by testing, if that makes sense. IOW, they emphasize what they want you to know by ensuring that not only do you know the material, but you know it in the terms they use to describe it in. It's not an awful way to do it, but it could go a lot further... and likewise, I think the "groundschool" (including the Kings courses) that we teach pilots is fairly woeful. You can look at the FAA written tests as a list of bullet-point facts that they want pilots to know, and to be able to recite. And really, that's what they are, and nothing more.
They certainly could be, though.
Regarding the test: I totally understand what you are saying and I sympathize. I've probably written more letters to the FAA about their tests and sent more corrective edits to the FAA regarding their basic flight handbooks than anyone you'll meet. You are correct that about the FOI content. The FAA test question pool is "rife with ambiguous, odd, out-of-context and absolute rote memorization snippets from the text, almost at random." However, the total number of those kinds of questions found in any test is very small. Certainly not enough to fail somebody assuming the somebody knows his/her stuff.
I used Sheppard Air to prepare for the "new" FOI just after it became the "new" FOI. I have zero doubt that I would have passed the test, but I may have passed it with a pretty awful score. Having never scored below 90% on an FAA exam, the thought of scoring poorly on the FOI was unappealing, to say the least.
Most ironically, the FAA does a damned fine job of explaining how to write good test questions, then defies their own advice in their own tests. Ain't that a beaatch? Worst, by my reckoning, are the questions that have "correct" answers that are just simply wrong. But again, while some of that detritus remains, most of that stuff has been and is being weeded out. For unknown reasons, it may still exist in the question pool, but it rarely shows up on actual tests.
We totally agree on this, but at the time I took the FOI, the situation was far less stable.
In any case, if one knows one's stuff, really knows one's stuff... to the point where one knows the theory well enough that s/he can apply it in various scenarios and questions, none of the FAA tests are that tough, and one will pass. I mean, really, how could one not? The passing score is f'rking 70%. Please.
As I said, if the grading was 'Pass/Fail' on the test report, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So there's that.
On to examiners: Yes, there are some prick examiners out there, especially in your area right now, but they are the exception. Simple solution... don't use them! In your case, go out to the valley.
<farnsworth>Oh my, yes.</farnsworth>
But actually, that brings me to a practical practical question: You seem to be familiar with the region I'm in, and the issues we're having with certain DPEs... the kind that seem to thrive on sending applicants home for the most minor things, then charging them full price to come back out... and I have a student who I'm grooming for his practical test. You mention the valley—do you have any recommendations in particular?
Generally, by the time the paperwork is done, any good examiner is going to know if the applicant is going to pass the oral. You really don't think examiners understand the issues you've identified about the written test? They've likely been roping that goat for decades now. They know when to fail the guy that got 100% on the knowledge test. And they know when to pass the guy that got 80%. That's kinda the whole point of the oral. So, as an instructor, I try to make sure all my students go to good examiners. Yes, I like the tough but fair ones. But I don't send students until I know they are ready, so I never worry, and I have a 100% first-time pass rate.
I do and I don't. The subject being CFI/FOI exams, I'm never sure when the person asking the question is going to go with a DPE or an FAA inspector who hasn't done a practical in years. If you look at my initial message, I'm pretty firm about knowing the material first, because I think it's critically important...
I don't know much about Gleim (except that they have nicely organized curricula, but being accountants, that makes sense) or ASA (except that being from Seattle, they're probably serial killers
).
They are both pretty much rote memorization of questions/answers, with a mild bit of explanation... just like Sheppard Air. They pretend to care about knowledge, but it's all directly related to the test questions, at best. At worst, it's literally just rote memorization.
But comparing the King Video series to Sheppard is like comparing Bernie Sanders to Bernie Madoff,; bombs to bombast; Baba Yagas and Boethius. Yeah, sure, the Kings center their instruction on the test questions, but in doing so they provide rich discussion of theory. When they tell you to answer with the wrong - but "correct" - answer, they explain WHY the question is FUBAR.
The descriptions, graphics, etc are really fairly minimal. Don't get me wrong, I actually DO like the Kings ... quite a lot... because they're really careful in grooming their source material. But frankly, they don't go into any real depth on anything that isn't more or less on the direct path to the test questions. I'm using them now to prep for ATP, and I also will use Sheppard Air when I'm done. Shrug!
Sheppard doesn't say anything. All Sheppard does is give you a bunch of ways to memorize answers completely outside of any aviation context, e.g. "If it's a question about the equation of lift, always give the answer with the biggest number."
Yeah... I would -never- (and I mean
never) answer questions like that, never never ever ever. But for every single question in their question pool, they go through and cull out the relevant explanations from the supporting document and source material, and often add additional dialog of their own to explain any ambiguity. It's actually some of my favorite sourcing of answers from any of the test prep providers, but perhaps it just suits my preferences for lack of padding.
Really?! Like I said, Sheppard doesn't even pretend to impart any subject matter knowledge whatsoever. And, interestingly, their sales people give much the same explanation about why this is a "good thing" that you did.
Yeah, it's ... I'm really divided about SA.
At the end of the day, if any of the knowledge tests are really presenting somebody with an intellectual challenge, that person should likely NOT be flying airplanes. There is pretty much ZERO about piloting that is intellectually very challenging. The higher thinking begins when one starts designing aircraft.
I really think the FAA written exams could be a helluva lot more complex, challenging and interesting ... but it would likely weed out some people who have the money to apply political pressure to the FAA... so I dunno.
Conclusion: Attaboy for knowing one's stuff. Attaboy for preparing for the knowledge test with a test prep kit. As long as one actually studies the material and actually knows the material, I have no problem with someone using a test prep kit. However, if one simply uses the prep kit and manages to pass the knowledge test, shame on that applicant, and I hope that applicant fails the oral so that he doesn't make the rest of look bad. Sheppard is shameless.
Then we basically completely agree ... as far as I can tell, at least.
~Fox
