I Passed my written!

Tristar

Tristar

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,837
Location
Lincoln, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Tristar
I've been having a ton of trouble trying to understand instrument and my last attempt at doing the written didnt fair so well. So I was really nervious today when I went in after about a month since my last try (school break). A huge sigh of relief came over me when the test proctor handed me the paper and said "you passed with an 85." WOW, I not only passed...I made a pretty decent grade! So I'm happy now.

The next real challenge will be proving it in the air.

Tristan
 
I knew you could do it. Thankfully you must have answered the opposite of everything I told you!
 
Tristar said:
A huge sigh of relief came over me when the test proctor handed me the paper and said "you passed with an 85."
Click to expand...

Good for you! I found the instrument written to be much more difficult conpared to the PPL, a lot more information to learn.
 
Tristar said:
"you passed with an 85." WOW, I not only passed...I made a pretty decent grade! So I'm happy now.

The next real challenge will be proving it in the air.

Tristan
Click to expand...

Good deal, it's always a relief to get the written out of the way, but remember, you got an 85% not 100% so don't just let this material drop by the wayside. Keep going through it until you score yourself at 100%. This will be stuff on your oral as well. Remember, flying does not brook 15% failure, especially not when shooting an approach to minimums carrying a load of ice. I know it's a pain Tristan, but work hard, I'd like to keep seeing you around here. IFR is a whole different world from VFR and will eat you much quicker. Never settle for less than 100% when it comes to aviation. Work hard and live, don't settle for less. Now go out and poke some holes in the clouds...
 
Henning said:
Good deal, it's always a relief to get the written out of the way, but remember, you got an 85% not 100% so don't just let this material drop by the wayside. Keep going through it until you score yourself at 100%. This will be stuff on your oral as well. Remember, flying does not brook 15% failure, especially not when shooting an approach to minimums carrying a load of ice. I know it's a pain Tristan, but work hard, I'd like to keep seeing you around here. IFR is a whole different world from VFR and will eat you much quicker. Never settle for less than 100% when it comes to aviation. Work hard and live, don't settle for less. Now go out and poke some holes in the clouds...
Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent.. But--a lot of the instrument written is a bunch of crap based on trick questions using outdated charts that don't exist anymore and questions about instruments or approaches you'll never see. Like anything in aviation you can never learn too much--but the written is only going to go so far. I think when it comes to actual real weather instrument flying the written isn't going to carry you very far vs. quality instruction and other material.
 
jesse said:
I agree with you to an extent.. But--a lot of the instrument written is a bunch of crap based on trick questions using outdated charts that don't exist anymore and questions about instruments or approaches you'll never see. Like anything in aviation you can never learn too much--but the written is only going to go so far. I think when it comes to actual real weather instrument flying the written isn't going to carry you very far vs. quality instruction and other material.
Click to expand...

Very well said, even though there are not supposed to be any "trick" questions on the exam, some of them are tricky if you do not read careful enough. On the PPL they spent oodles of time on the heading for the ADF, and all my ADF's had a dial you just turned. I will say, that continued studying is one of the best ways to survive though. Congrats.

Dan
 
Great, it will now be a relatively quick job to review and correct in the areas listed on your printout that you missed, then concentrate on real world IFR, which is much more fun and productive.
 
jesse said:
I agree with you to an extent.. But--a lot of the instrument written is a bunch of crap based on trick questions using outdated charts that don't exist anymore and questions about instruments or approaches you'll never see. Like anything in aviation you can never learn too much--but the written is only going to go so far. I think when it comes to actual real weather instrument flying the written isn't going to carry you very far vs. quality instruction and other material.
Click to expand...

Quite true to a great extent, which is why I hate the fact that you aren't told exactly what you missed in plain words. Did you miss a piece of minutia, or did you miss something of substance? As for instrument approaches you'll never see... I completely disagree with you there. You better understand and be ready to shoot every approach. You never know what you'll see and need,(and need to make stick the first time) and then there's the approaches you don't "see" at all, you just hear them. One of those saved my bacon one evening... That's the thing about IFR, when things go wrong, you are already 2 1/2 links into an accident chain to begin with, you want to know everything, because you have no idea which piece of minutia will prove critical. It really is a whole different world from VFR flying. I'll climb into nearly anything VFR because I have high confidence in surviving. I am quite fussy about what I climb into IFR because my chances are much reduced.
 
Henning said:
Quite true to a great extent, which is why I hate the fact that you aren't told exactly what you missed in plain words. Did you miss a piece of minutia, or did you miss something of substance? As for instrument approaches you'll never see... I completely disagree with you there. You better understand and be ready to shoot every approach.
Click to expand...

There are instrument approaches in the test that NO longer exist and use terms that are no longer used on new charts. You'll never use them in real life and do nothing but confuse. It's outdated as hell.
 
There are actualy some charts in the brand new books, I believe there is one for Dothan, that are really out of date. The tough thing about publishing approaches in books is that in real life they do change often and by the time a book is published, the material could be a year or two old.
 
Congrats!

As a recently rated IR pilot myself (pass IR 'ride in December), I can feel your pain in regards to studying for the written exam. :yes: The flying part usually has a tendency to come more 'naturally' than the info you're required to spew back on the written exam.

Good luck and keep plugging away at it!
 
CJones said:
Congrats!

As a recently rated IR pilot myself (pass IR 'ride in December), I can feel your pain in regards to studying for the written exam. :yes: The flying part usually has a tendency to come more 'naturally' than the info you're required to spew back on the written exam.

Good luck and keep plugging away at it!
Click to expand...

I've been taking and teaching (mostly USCG, same thing though) written exams for quite some time, and I have always objected to the swallow and regurgitate method. Almost all the rules the USCG and FAA have have a reason and logic behind them (written in blood if you please). If you understand the reasons then you can digest the question and bring forth an answer metabolically rather than spewing one out.
 
I'm currently working with a client who didn't do the ground school first, so I'm taking him through the knowledge training in preparation for the "written" test. Yikes! I'd forgotten how much totally irrelevent garbage there is on the IR knowledge test, ranging from microwave landing system to regulations governing instrument instructor time logging. And when's the last time anyone saw an RMI in a light plane? Not to mention testing folks on stuff that would never require actual recall from memory, like the list of instruments required for IFR flight, or figuring out how many feet right of localizer centerline two dots is at 1.9nm. You gotta be kiddin' me!:dunno: I'm beginning to think an 85 is about as good as anyone can expect to get without cramming a lot of stuff into mental RAM that they'd do better to leave empty for more important information.
 
Henning said:
I've been taking and teaching (mostly USCG, same thing though) written exams for quite some time, and I have always objected to the swallow and regurgitate method. Almost all the rules the USCG and FAA have have a reason and logic behind them (written in blood if you please). If you understand the reasons then you can digest the question and bring forth an answer metabolically rather than spewing one out.
Click to expand...

I think my 'spew' comment was a poor choice of words on my part. Considering that I got 95% score on my IR written exam and I absolutely DESPISE simply memorizing information - I can learn MUCH MUCH better if I can learn the process or logic behind a problem - I think I was able to get a fair grasp on what the FAA wanted me to *learn* for that aspect of earning the rating.

At the same time, I DID use the Gleim test-bank book as a conclusion to my studying so that I would be able understand the wording that the FAA would use to pull the info from me. So in one aspect, I was logically and methodically deciphering the answer to the questions and in another I was simply 'spewing' the answer to "If you're flying at FL270 and your DME quits working, you should..." because there isn't much 'logic' you can follow to reach the answer to a basic reg-based question like that.

Overall, though, I do agree that simply memorizing the answers just long enough to pass the test is really selling yourself short in the long run.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm beginning to think an 85 is about as good as anyone can expect to get without cramming a lot of stuff into mental RAM that they'd do better to leave empty for more important information.
Click to expand...

IIRC I got a 97. I guess it's been a long time since I did an FAA written (though I did a CASA one last year). I typically deal with USCG and there you have little useless info you are tested on from memory, Just Rules of the Road which takes a 90% to pass, Nav Plotting which is working things out on the chart, Celestial Nav where you have to write your own sght reduction form to work your problems (you get an almanac and the HOs to do the actual reduction)and Stability where you have to know how to work the calculations. The rest is knowing where to look up the answers in the CFRs and the rest of the wheelhouse pubs.
 
Henning said:
I've been taking and teaching (mostly USCG, same thing though) written exams for quite some time, and I have always objected to the swallow and regurgitate method. Almost all the rules the USCG and FAA have have a reason and logic behind them (written in blood if you please). If you understand the reasons then you can digest the question and bring forth an answer metabolically rather than spewing one out.
Click to expand...
True but theres a difference between the way I talk and the way the FAA talks. I only get confused about what I say half the time!
 
Tristar said:
True but theres a difference between the way I talk and the way the FAA talks. I only get confused about what I say half the time!
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, there is that issue, government speak. Well, all I can say to that is it's like learning any other foreign language; You can learn the theory from a book and get a line on it, but in order to be fluent, you need to live in it for a while. Sadly, I've had to live with it for about 20 years now, so I've become pretty proficient at it. I didn't mean to down you before, just don't want to see things I've seen too many times already. Stay sharp and have fun flying it. Once instrument flying "clicks" with you and the whole package comes together, it's quite rewarding.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Ahh yes, there is that issue, government speak. Well, all I can say to that is it's like learning any other foreign language; You can learn the theory from a book and get a line on it, but in order to be fluent, you need to live in it for a while. Sadly, I've had to live with it for about 20 years now, so I've become pretty proficient at it.
Click to expand...
You mean you're qualified to be a Dimocrat politician??? :D
 
Henning said:
Wash your mouth out with soap. I'm qualified to be a libertarian politician.
Click to expand...
That would be a horrible combination with the four oranges I just ate.

Besides, I'm a step ahead of you. As stated before, I've gone past Libertarian to something that would have to be titled "Reformed Anarchist." I don't want to take over government; I just want to abolish eighty percent of it. The party doesn't exist but there are a great many who think that way.
 
KennyFlys said:
That would be a horrible combination with the four oranges I just ate.

Besides, I'm a step ahead of you. As stated before, I've gone past Libertarian to something that would have to be titled "Reformed Anarchist." I don't want to take over government; I just want to abolish eighty percent of it. The party doesn't exist but there are a great many who think that way.
Click to expand...

We're on the same wavelength dude and two people makes a party. I used to say I was an anarchist here but people didn't really understand what that meant. Reformed Anarchist, or maybe even better Reformational Anarchist has a better ring. So, we have a start. Who else is in? Get the Gov't back down to what the preamble says it's about.
 
LOL hey guys, my thread was supposed to be about a happy event. Don't throw out the butterflies with politics.
 
Tristan,

Congrats! You did good! An 85 will certainly keep the examiner from smelling "blood" when you do your practical test.

Remember why you started the training, and keep your goals in mind, especially when you feel like you're not getting anywhere! You can do it!
 
Tristar said:
LOL hey guys, my thread was supposed to be about a happy event. Don't throw out the butterflies with politics.
Click to expand...

Yeah... Wow!

Congrats Tris... Have fun with the flying part. :yes:


And how quickly things can go down the tubes on this board sometimes... Poorly written FAA questions to Republicans are dead and Libertarianism is the only future in only five posts!!! :hairraise:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top