Private and Commercial Test Time Reduced

WDD

WDD

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
5,368
Location
Atlanta / KRYY
Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
Applicants taking the 60-question Private Pilot Airplane (PAR) exam will have 120 minutes, down from 150, and applicants for the 100-question Commercial Pilot Airplane (CAX) exam will have 150 minutes, down from 180.
 
Standard is to memorize the questions and answers, which almost cuts test-taking time down to what it would be if you went in knowing the material, so why allow time that nobody uses?
 
The PMP exam is much more difficult on average than either the Private or Instrument knowledge exam. It’s also much longer; 230 questions in the same 180 minutes. I don’t see more than 60 minutes being necessary for the FAA exams. 90 is exceedingly generous.

The FAA exams also have a much lower percentage of questions that require calculations to find the most correct answer, nor are those questions lead with a multi paragraph scenario.
 
As I see it, there are two main schools of thought for preparing for the exams.

The first is, as MauleSkinner puts it, to "memorize the questions and answers"

The second is to study the material and actually understand it.

In neither case is a large amount of time needed to answer a question. Either your photographic memory recalls that this question was question #453 whose answer is B, or you know how to calculate a crosswind component and also arrive at B.

The only group that should be negatively impacted by this change is the "I read the textbooks cover to cover in 2hrs total, I'll be fine" group. I feel it is actually beneficial to drop the time required as their suffering is shortened. They can proceed to failing quicker and thus go onto their favorite message board and complain about how unfair it is. This allows the "not my fault, the system is rigged" healing to begin more quickly.
 
I took the PAR about seven years ago and finished in less than 45 minutes. Missed one question. I chatted with the folks out front for a while and noticed that all of the other candidates exited the testing room shortly after I did. I remember thinking that they allotted a LOT more time than necessary. Of course, if you didn't properly prepare...

Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the test administrators, but if they analyzed test pass rates with completion time and found that 100% of those who passed did so in less than 120 minutes or that 99% of all candidates exited the room within 120 minutes, I would suspect this is a topic unworthy of discussion. :)
 
It's my opinion that if you don't know the material having extra time isn't going to help.
Spending 120 minutes staring at a question you don't know the answer to isn't going to change that.
There are some types of tests where having the time to try multiple approaches to solving a problem is advantageous, but multiple choice super simple FAA testing is not that.
 
M2C

1) The decision to shorten two of the more popular tests has nothing to do with enhancing how well the written test predicts you know the material and will be a good pilot. It is all about being able to schedule more tests in per day to increase profits for the testing monopoly.

2) I know all POA folks are stud muffin pilots who get over 100% on all tests taken, with a few making it more sporting by taking their written tests blind folded. But I'll wager that yes there are those who take all the time allotted. You may or may not consider these rubes unworthy. This change will drop the average scoring.

3) Will it make a difference? Given you need 70% or so to pass, and the average score is much higher than that, probably not.
 
WDD said:
1) The decision to shorten two of the more popular tests has nothing to do with enhancing how well the written test predicts you know the material and will be a good pilot. It is all about being able to schedule more tests in per day to increase profits for the testing monopoly.
Click to expand...
Probably more about not having to pay proctors for time they’re not needed.
 
The national test company doesn’t pay the proctors - the location (flight school, etc) does. The national testing company gets paid per test and time spent by proctors doesn’t matter.

I’m in the “get off by lawn” - “don’t trust the big pharma big oil big corporations” mood today……
 
Some people are really good at taking tests, especially multiple-guess tests.

People who don’t do well on tests should not be penalized
 
MauleSkinner said:
Probably more about not having to pay proctors for time they’re not needed.
Click to expand...
This and not having to have empty seats that are blocked for test periods people aren't using. Shortening the allowed time to what people actually use allows more scheduling blocks in the day. For my recent tests, it was a real issue finding good times, and I had to conform my schedule to wear was available.
 
Last edited:
Didn't help on the last bunch of PSI tests I took that they scheduled me (via their national registration) for a day when the testing center wasn't available for tests. I then rescheduled for the next week, bright and early in the morning when the school opened (it was the local A&P training school) only to find that the test software was crocked and that there was nobody yet awake at PSI (they're in California) to provide support to the test center for a couple of hours. They did let me have free coffee and donuts while I waited.
 
Bob Noel said:
Some people are really good at taking tests, especially multiple-guess tests.

People who don’t do well on tests should not be penalized
Click to expand...
They need to be tested somehow - what do you recommend?
 
Eric Brunelle said:
They need to be tested somehow - what do you recommend?
Click to expand...
Give enough time to figure out what they are asking and which one of the odd answers might be correct.

Some people are better at "odd" than others.
 
I have to wonder how a person with issues due to stress when taking tests would perform under stress in an airborne emergency...
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I have to wonder how a person with issues due to stress when taking tests would perform under stress in an airborne emergency...
Click to expand...

can anyone show a correlation between high test scores and being able to cope with the stress of an airborne emergency?
 
and, just in case anyone cares, I've never had a problem doing well on tests. I'm an example of someone who, as a student, wasn't stressed by tests and always did well on school exams, tests, pop quizes, etc.

But I'm also someone who understands that being good at taking tests is only a measure of being good at taking tests...
 
Bob Noel said:
I'll turn that around: what is the justification for reducing the test time?
Click to expand...
PSI knows exactly how much time test takers use. So they could easily have picked a time that is sufficient of 9x% of test takers. Maybe even 100%. Does anyone ever fail one of these tests for running out of time?
 
Bob Noel said:
Some people are really good at taking tests, especially multiple-guess tests.

People who don’t do well on tests should not be penalized
Click to expand...

I take the controversial position that the "I'm a poor test-taker" argument is a copout. Unless someone has a learning disability, they aren't poor test takers, they just don't want to study. It is true that some people learn more quickly than others, but the slower learners need to just buckle down and accept that they may have to study a bit more. The objective is to learn. The test only exists to confirm that learning has occurred.
 
write-stuff said:
I take the controversial position that the "I'm a poor test-taker" argument is a copout. Unless someone has a learning disability, they aren't poor test takers, they just don't want to study. It is true that some people learn more quickly than others, but the slower learners need to just buckle down and accept that they may have to study a bit more. The objective is to learn. The test only exists to confirm that learning has occurred.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being a poor test-taker and not studying and not understanding the material.
 
WDD said:
More money
Click to expand...
It only makes them more money if they can offer more tests in the same amount of time, and that benefits people trying to schedule tests. But even if the only outcome was more money, would that be a problem?
 
Can they not schedule the tests internally for 2 hours then, and let the 1% go up to 2 1/2? It's not like no other business overbooks their customers. It seems like they are taking advantage of their newfound monopoly to reduce a time limit that has been in place for decades, punishing test-takers for a problem that can be solved internally.

Heck they could have even let people voluntarily reduce their time limit. I once convinced a test center to let me take a test an hour and a half before they were closing. I promised I would be done by then. They told me some people really do use the entire time allotment.
 
Yes. They can do more tests in same amount of time.

Not a problem per se, but at least not as convenient for those who like to take the extra time for the written tests. Not of course an issue to those here who are all above average and can finish in 10 minutes.
 
Bob Noel said:
There is a difference between being a poor test-taker and not studying and not understanding the material.
Click to expand...

What’s missing is definitions and data. What is the definition of a poor test taker? Do poor test takers actually lack the cognitive ability to apply* the requisite knowledge in the appropriate situations?

Until a definition for a poor test taker is agreed on, performance metrics can’t be observed to determine whether there’s a cutoff for cognitive ability.

*Bloom’s taxonomy definition.
 
WDD said:
Yes. They can do more tests in same amount of time.

Not a problem per se, but at least not as convenient for those who like to take the extra time for the written tests. Not of course an issue to those here who are all above average and can finish in 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
How many test takers currently need more than the new time allotments?
 
WDD said:
Don’t know. Could be 0. Could be half. Would be nice if they mentioned that.
Click to expand...

I had this exact discussion on another forum when this topic came up. The FAA/PSI absolutely have this data down to the second for each exam and know how long any given percentile of examinees takes a given exam in. No doubt this decision was backed up by these statistics. Of course, the only people this really benefits likely is PSI/test centers, who can schedule more tests in a given timeslot (not that the test centers are making much these days).

Now only if they could fix the awful loading times on their software so that things would load at a less than glacial pace...
 
WDD said:
Don’t know. Could be 0. Could be half. Would be nice if they mentioned that.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. It would also be nice if people didn’t argue from a position of ignorance, but we can’t have everything, can we? ;)
 
write-stuff said:
I take the controversial position that the "I'm a poor test-taker" argument is a copout. Unless someone has a learning disability, they aren't poor test takers, they just don't want to study. It is true that some people learn more quickly than others, but the slower learners need to just buckle down and accept that they may have to study a bit more. The objective is to learn. The test only exists to confirm that learning has occurred.
Click to expand...

I’ve often thought that those people who claim to be “bad at taking tests” are probably more likely “bad at knowing how to study”. I mean, any results of anything are tied to the process. If the results are not as desired, the process needs to change. This is not a personal attack or an insult. Many, many people do not know the optimum way to study for tests.

Also, if there are “bad” test takers, then obviously there must be good test takers. For me, I always do very well on tests. Is this because I’m a good test taker, or is it because I work really hard to prepare? If you say it’s because I’m a good test taker, then it devalues the importance of studying. Whereas on the other hand, if you say it’s due to my studying, then it follows that “bad” test takers fail due to ineffective studying - meaning the idea of “good” and “bad” test takers is irrelevant.

But as always, like with anything else, it’s essentially impossible to understand what it’s really like for the opposite side, since in this case it really is impossible to “walk a mile in their shoes”. So I accept that I have a bias, as a “good tester”.

Regarding the shortening of the time frames, I’ve always thought that they were excessively long anyway. I have to believe that almost nobody takes the entire time, and if they do, they really didn’t know the material anyway. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but the shortened time frames seem completely reasonable to me.
 
RussR said:
I’ve often thought that those people who claim to be “bad at taking tests” are probably more likely “bad at knowing how to study”.....
Click to expand...
In the adult learning space, most often it's failure to follow directions or read the entire question, to include references.

An example would be a time/speed/distance question based on Fig 26 of the Rec/Remote/Private Pilot AKTS.
upload_2023-3-21_19-22-18.png
An application* level question should include an answer using the associated scale and an answer using the scale on a plotter. The *most* correct answer would be the answer closest to whatever is calculated using the associated scale, not the scale on the plotter since this artifact was designed to instruct the test taker to use the associated scale.

*Bloom's taxonomy - Apply
 
Pass the Written said:
Of course, the only people this really benefits likely is PSI/test centers, who can schedule more tests in a given timeslot (not that the test centers are making much these days).
Click to expand...
This unquestionably benefits test takers as well because if the test centers are booking more tests, it just means there are people who want to take them.

Most of the testing centers around here are at flight schools and they are busy. It's nearly impossible to schedule a test in short notice unless you want to go at 730am. I took a test last week where the time limit was 2.5 hours and I finished in just over an hour, and I didn't do the memorization method that's so popular. The proctor spent more time watching an empty chair than I spent answering questions.

If the time limit was more realistic, another airman could have booked a test that day.
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
I’ve often thought that those people who claim to be “bad at taking tests” are probably more likely “bad at knowing how to study”. I mean, any results of anything are tied to the process. If the results are not as desired, the process needs to change. This is not a personal attack or an insult. Many, many people do not know the optimum way to study for tests.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people think that if they read or hear something, and it makes sense or they remember hearing or reading it before, that constitutes knowledge. It may, but in order to pass a test, they need to recall that knowledge, which isn’t what they studied to do.

Same thing with flying. The fact that they can fly Point A to Point B, fly an ILS, and land on a daily basis has no bearing on their ability to satisfactorily accomplish engine out operations or nonprecision approaches on a checkride.
 
dmspilot said:
Can they not schedule the tests internally for 2 hours then, and let the 1% go up to 2 1/2? It's not like no other business overbooks their customers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they could overbook. How would that be a better alternative? No one likes being bumped from a flight, finding out their reserved rental car doesn't exist, or the hotel have away their room. Unless there's some evidence that people who would otherwise pass actually need the extra time, this change is costless.

The PAR test requires a 70% to pass. If you get 90% correct, you only need to answer 47 questions. So this might affect very slow, marginal candidates.
 
Still waiting for someone to shut running out of time on one of these exams.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It would also be nice if people didn’t argue from a position of ignorance
Click to expand...

If the FAA/PSI weren't hiding the facts behind the decision then that would not be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top