70% v 100%

Written exam scores 70% v 100%

  • More than 70% means you studied too much

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Less than 100% means you don't know something important

    Votes: 40 78.4%
  • Total voters
    51
Arnold

Arnold

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,480
Location
Philadelphia Area
Display Name
Display name:
Arnold
In another thread on taking the instrument written exam I saw that two people made the statement that more than 70% correct means you studied too much, or similar sentiments.

The other side to this argument is: less than 100% means you don't know something you should know as a pilot.

For the moment let's pretend this is a binary world - if forced to choose - which statement best reflects your point of view?
 
Last edited:
I am more of the thinking of it as really a "pass or fail" test on any of the written tests.
It is great to get 100, but just because you don't doesn't mean you didn't learn the material well.
Personally I am a ROTTEN test taker. I get nervous about it and have not gotten 100% on any test I can remember my entire life.

Mark B
 
I think obviously, the answer is "less than 100% means you missed something important," but that said, its 70% for a reason.

I scored late 80s on both of my writtens. I'll take it.
 
Of course, it isn't a binary proposition in real life, but that answer seems to be the "best."
 
This poll eliminates the obvious. Sometimes, you just misread a question. It doesn't mean that you don't know the correct answer, it just means that you missed a question on a test.
 
IF you take the time to go back and find out what you missed and figure out why, then you can claim to know whatever subset of total information was presented on that one particular test in one given instance.

BUT -- no one presumes that 100% means you know it all. Those that do think this will be humbled right quick.
 
There is a reason 70% is the passing grade. Anything above 70% means you studied too hard. :yes: What ever it is you need to know after the test you can look up. Trying to memorize everything is a waste of time.

Like Dan says, if you get 100% that does not mean you know everything, far from it. Passing the test shows a minimum amount of knowledge, not the maximum. Getting a higher score is a good thing, but only for the week you took the test.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Getting a higher score is a good thing, but only for the week you took the test.
Click to expand...
Well, that and the day you take your checkride...the examiner won't feel quite as duty-bound to put you through the wringer on the oral if you scored high enough on the written that it's obvious you prepared.
 
ApacheBob said:
This poll eliminates the obvious. Sometimes, you just misread a question. It doesn't mean that you don't know the correct answer, it just means that you missed a question on a test.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a wide middle ground and the world is not binary, but what prompted this poll was not my point of view, but rather another thread where two posts stated that two different well respected CFIs had made the statement referenced about 70%. I am curious to see how wide spread that belief is, and also want to see the response to the converse 100% question.

I'll wait a few days and put in my two cents after the response rate slows a bit.

Arnold
 
Arnold said:
For the moment let's pretend this is a binary world
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say it's not?

OMG!

My sky is falling!

:frog:

Seriously, With regard to your question and being a pilot in general:

I'm quite anal. Anything less than 100% is a reflection of not being perfect. Pilots should strive to be perfect in everything they do (with regards to flying anyway). It's a serious business we're playing with here and anything less than perfection *could* kill us some day.
 
Last edited:
I think the ATP written was my highest score of all the tests. I think I got somewhere between 95% and 98% can't remember exactly. Of course I took the test at a place where you spend the whole day memorizing the questions and corresponding answers and after I took the test I had a very successful memory dump yet I still exercise my ATP cert. within the FAR's and company policy which seems to be a lot more up to date than those tests. Until the FAA completely revamps all of the written tests then it won't have a whole lot of impact on safety. The real burden falls of the instructor and the quality of training towards the rating not the written test. Just enough to pass, the rest is wasted brain space that could be used to learn real world safety techniques.
 
I will admit that my perspective on this question is somewhat colored by the fact that I'm good at taking tests...I just blasted through the Fundamentals of Instruction practice test (50 questions) in 8 minutes and got a 94, and the Sport Pilot Airplane practice test (70 questions) in 16 minutes and scored 94.4.

How many folks out there that say a 70 is acceptable are good at taking tests, and vice versa?
 
I don't think your ultimate success as an instrument pilot can be measured well with a multiple choice test. In my opinion the knowledge test measures how well you take tests. That said I think you may have an easier time with the examiner if you come in with a good score. I am someone who, at least when I was younger, was good at taking tests and I have had examiners comment on my scores. Although I can't recall that I have ever gotten 100 on anything, my scores were usually in the 90s. I have taken too many tests to remember anything specific. As far as how I feel about my own competence at this point, I think my scores on knowledge tests were pretty much irrelevant.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't think your ultimate success as an instrument pilot can be measured well with a multiple choice test.
Click to expand...
I agree with this one. There's far more to being a good pilot than being able to pass a written test. OTOH, barely squeaking by on the written might - and I stress MIGHT - be a sign of having problems understanding the basica knowledge required to fly safely.
 
Remember that, unlike 2nd grade spelling class, a fair amount of this stuff can actually get you killed.

IMHO:
The amount of material that needs to be learned isn't exactly overwhelming or embedded deep in a small library of books like a PhD thesis. (My private AND instrument materials combined are 3 main books, and a handful of supporting reference materials, and two practice exams. At the local community college would be considered half time student status for a single semester. IOW, one 3 hour class for the private and another 3 hour class for the instrument)
Study the material until you know it cold and take the practice exams to 100%.
Anything missed on the actual test should be an oopsie when marking the answer on the answer sheet, overthinking the answer when you know you should mark it and go to the next one, changing an answer when you know you should leave it alone or simple test anxiety nervousness.

At least that's how I did it.


Minimal acceptable standards are not acceptable.
 
My experience as an instrument flight instructor is that the IR written test results are a poor indicator of the trainee's practical instrument flying knowledge. That may be why the examiners I've worked with rarely show any interest in the test score other than to see if the applicant passed.
 
In my opinion too much emphasis is placed on passing the test or getting a good score and not enough on understanding the material. The way I see it the written test is an objective, imperfect way to measure if you know the material whereas the oral portion of the practical test is a subjective, also imperfect way to gauge if you understand the material.

For me the written test, especially the practice tests are a good way to find the things that I don't understand. I know some of the questions are simple memorization but not all that many.

When I was doing my private, I drank the Koolaid and went with the more than 70 is studying too much, but after that oral, I concluded even a 100 was not a good indication I knew enough to be the kind of pilot I wanted to be.

Joe
 
Geico266 said:
There is a reason 70% is the passing grade. Anything above 70% means you studied too hard. :yes: What ever it is you need to know after the test you can look up.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, somethings you don't know, or know incorrectly will kill you before you get the chance to look them up.
 
fgcason said:
Remember that, unlike 2nd grade spelling class, a fair amount of this stuff can actually get you killed.

IMHO:
The amount of material that needs to be learned isn't exactly overwhelming or embedded deep in a small library of books like a PhD thesis. (My private AND instrument materials combined are 3 main books, and a handful of supporting reference materials, and two practice exams. At the local community college would be considered half time student status for a single semester. IOW, one 3 hour class for the private and another 3 hour class for the instrument)
Study the material until you know it cold and take the practice exams to 100%.
Anything missed on the actual test should be an oopsie when marking the answer on the answer sheet, overthinking the answer when you know you should mark it and go to the next one, changing an answer when you know you should leave it alone or simple test anxiety nervousness.

At least that's how I did it.


Minimal acceptable standards are not acceptable.
Click to expand...

What he said....
 
I'm good at taking tests and my position is that 70 is acceptable (in the
context of what happens during the oral portion of the check ride).
 
> Minimal acceptable standards are not acceptable.

huh? what's the point of a minimal acceptable standard if it
isn't *acceptable*?
 
Ron Levy said:
My experience as an instrument flight instructor is that the IR written test results are a poor indicator of the trainee's practical instrument flying knowledge. That may be why the examiners I've worked with rarely show any interest in the test score other than to see if the applicant passed.
Click to expand...
That has to be my take after finishing the II. The written test sucked but then, I'd had a late student the night before and slept lousy. When it came time for the oral, I did great.

You really can't study too much. There's so much information to take in, it won't happen on just a couple passes. A couple years ago, my instrument instructor told me to read AIM Chapter 5, five times. It didn't take long to figure out why.

Another thing I've found is those who use the oral exam guides as a crutch or look at them as the book of salvation to make it through the oral. It should be used for just that, a guide. Again, you really can't study too much nor should finishing the checkride be the end of studying.
 
Getting 100% doesn't mean that you haven't missed something important. There are somewhere in the range of, what, 800-1000 questions that can be asked? Sure, there are a number of effective repeats, but you could score a 100 because you happened to get the 100 questions you knew the answer to, and have no idea on the other however many hundred are left. Conversely, you could get all these questions about using ADFs dead on, and never use an ADF ever again in the course of your flying.

A coworker of mine used to joke "So, you get a 70% on the test, that means you're a 70% pilot and crash 30% of the time." Obviously, that's not how it works.

Consequently, I'm not voting. My answer is "neither."
 
70 is average. I'd like to be better than average but I'll take 70. Anything more is gravy.

I'd also like to review (and KNOW) what I missed so I am a better more knowledgeable pilot.
 
I understand and agree that legal&current is not necessarily safe&proficient.

Wasn't fgcason refering to the knowledge test? If so, my question stands.
 
Neither answer is final, because whatever your score, you are always to go back and remedy any areas of deficiency, whether it's one question or a dozen. So in the end the candidate should always have a 100% score.
 
Last edited:
Bob Noel said:
I understand and agree that legal&current is not necessarily safe&proficient.

Wasn't fgcason refering to the knowledge test? If so, my question stands.
Click to expand...

And that question was...

Bob Noel said:
> Minimal acceptable standards are not acceptable.

huh? what's the point of a minimal acceptable standard if it
isn't *acceptable*?
Click to expand...
I would be quite hesitant to allow the doctor who I knew had graduated at the bottom of his class to operate on me. Just as I would also be quite hesitant to climb in an airplane with a pilot who I know consistently scored 70% on his tests.

In both cases, what they didn't learn could kill you. While I understand that the test score isn't 100% reliable in determining the skill of either operator it is certainly a first indicator as to how seriously they take the task at hand.
 
I don't agree with either of the answers. The goal is to learn the material and the way that is measured is with a test. Some people are better test takers than others.

I've always studied to know 100% of the material. There are still enough memory lapses and the stupid mistake to make solid 100% hard to obtain. That being said knowing how to take a test to maximize your potential score is critical.

Fwiw 1 wrong on the PP 3 on the IR. Best series of tests was during a 10 month Competer Training School 3 wrong out 1000 total test questions.

Unfortunately that did not carry over into college tests. Go Figure.
 
I don't think I studied "too hard" for my PP written (scored 98; one question wrong)... maybe more than was necessary to simply pass, but a lot of that stuff actually sank in and is occasionally put to use even today. :D

How someone avoids studying too hard is beyond me...I really took my time and basically reviewed everything I'd been told was pertinent, until I could ace a couple of mock written tests. Then I went and took it for real, before anything leaked out of my skull.

As for 70% being really acceptable: fortunately, the oral and the checkride are really the last hurdles- passing the written just qualifies you to stand those trials.

So I've never taken my own high written score very seriously, nor would I look down at a pilot who barely squeaked by on the written.

IMHO, you can't measure a pilot by the written score any more than by the number of hours to solo, etc. You have to fly with a pilot to see what kind of pilot they are, or maybe talk to them about flying. That's why there's an oral and a chek ride.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Getting 100% doesn't mean that you haven't missed something important. There are somewhere in the range of, what, 800-1000 questions that can be asked? Sure, there are a number of effective repeats, but you could score a 100 because you happened to get the 100 questions you knew the answer to, and have no idea on the other however many hundred are left. Conversely, you could get all these questions about using ADFs dead on, and never use an ADF ever again in the course of your flying.
Click to expand...

That's a good way of looking at a written test, particularly one that pulls from a general question pool.

Though I am expected to know something for the purposes of passing a test, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will ever use that information after taking the test. Personally I am someone who learns best from practical experience and through example, so in the above case, if I had never been exposed to ADF work outside of reading a book and half an hour of ground school, I might do poorly on those questions but ace everything else. I don't remember if the system told you what you missed or not, if it did, it would give me some direction to know what I may need to study up on a little bit. Unfortunately so many tests you take give you no useful feedback these days, you just get a raw score.

I don't recall studying very much for my PPL written, apart from reading through my Kershner book a couple of times and just recalling what I had learned from my lessons. I think I only missed one or two questions on the test.
 
Last edited:
If Roy says Ralph studied too hard on a test because Ralph got the better score, I'd say Roy was just a touch jealous.
 
I like to err on the side of caution. Especially when lives are involved so I'll say 100% is what I'm shooting for. That being said, does that make me exempt from someday killing myself? No. I don't think it necessarily indicates a higher level of learning which would be applying it. A lot of people memorize the answers they don't really understand and never seek to understand.
 
Thanks Everyone for your vote and your discussion.

As many of you pointed out the world is not binary and there is middle ground. On the other hand, in thirty years of aviating and all of the exams I've taken I can't say that I met a question that was not relevant or was unimportant. So it is my opinion that anything less than 100% means something relevant, having some importance was missed. It doesn't mean the student won't get it somewhere else, but it was missed.

What I do think is problematic is the attitude that anything more than 70% indicates too much study. We can agree that 70% is good enough, but I find it scary if a person trusted with instructing aviators, or aviators themselves, have the attitude that more than 70% is the result somehow of "too much" work and study.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to a student: Do the best you can, you need to get a 70% but that is the minimum and is probably not reflective of your abilities and knowledge. People have off days for myriad reasons and no one will think less of you if your score is 70%, sure higher is better, but the best you can do is the best you can do. The advantage to doing very well, if you can, is that your oral exam will be shorter because the examiner won't need to examine you on as many missed subject areas.

So that's my twenty cents worth (inflation) and it seems to be pretty close to the generally held view. Thanks again for voting.
 
Ron Levy said:
My experience as an instrument flight instructor is that the IR written test results are a poor indicator of the trainee's practical instrument flying knowledge.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "practical instrument flying knowledge" However, I think you mean having enough knowledge to support the ability to conduct an IFR flight from start to finish with an acceptable level of safety. While it is certainly true that the written exam does not indicate flying ability, is is equally true that flying ability does not indicate knowledge.

Knowledge and ability can be, and often are, two very different things. I have flown with pilots who are much better sticks than I am, but didn't have the knowledge to deal with an unforeseen or untrained event. If asked why they did not know an important item they its because they "got that wrong on the written and/or never needed to know it before."


That may be why the examiners I've worked with rarely show any interest in the test score other than to see if the applicant passed.
Click to expand...

You perhaps give yourself too little credit. It is of course possible (probable?) that the examiners you've worked with rarely show an interest in the test score because they know your work and know that you have gone back and filled in the gaps.

Thanks for taking the time to answer the poll question.
 
I picked the "less than 100" choice but I don't really believe in either one. If you miss anything on the written, you are supposed to get additional help on the missed subject matter. So theoretically a pilot who scraped by with 70% and then went over the missed material with his instructor well enough to master the previously unmastered material could easily end up knowing the subjects better than the pilot who aced the exam by cramming the night before and then subsequently forgot half of what he learned.

Then you have to consider the fact (at least IMO) that a significant amount of the material on the written (at least when I took them) is either immaterial to safety, bogus, or both. In addition, many of the questions and associated answer choices are so poorly written that test takers who actually know the material will get some answers wrong. To me this means that the missed questions may or may not indicate a lack of important information.
 
lancefisher said:
If you miss anything on the written, you are supposed to get additional help on the missed subject matter. So theoretically a pilot who scraped by with 70% and then went over the missed material with his instructor well enough to master the previously unmastered material could easily end up knowing the subjects better than the pilot who aced the exam by cramming the night before and then subsequently forgot half of what he learned.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

lancefisher said:
Then you have to consider the fact (at least IMO) that a significant amount of the material on the written (at least when I took them) is either immaterial to safety, bogus, or both.
Click to expand...
Jesse provided us with some of those examples recently.
 
jmaynard said:
...
How many folks out there that say a 70 is acceptable are good at taking tests, and vice versa?
Click to expand...

I'm good at taking tests. Got a 100 and I was amazed myself that I was nervous - only because I wanted to get 100 and didn't want to screw that up. (I went over my answers 3 times.)


jmaynard said:
Well, that and the day you take your checkride...the examiner won't feel quite as duty-bound to put you through the wringer on the oral if you scored high enough on the written that it's obvious you prepared.
Click to expand...

Yep. My point. My PPL oral was, "There's no area I need to ask you about," but it was still not as good as I'd like because there were areas where I guessed wrong when I forgot didn't need to.
 
This is where these sort of tests show their bad side. There are some really important questions that you *should* know the answer to. There are some other questions that are stupid, pointless, and the answer is half wrong too. The test doesn't weigh one over the other.

If you walked away with an 80% pass rate and answered correctly on the important questions you're going to be fine. If you walk away with an 80% and did that by knowing the stupid ones instead of the important ones then you are missing some critical knowledge.

Basically--the written test just makes you work and a good examiner will find your weak areas and drill you on them in the checkride which makes up for the written's errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top