AOPA has engaged the FAA in response to reports that unannounced, significant changes in the question banks of at least three airman knowledge tests have dramatically increased failure rates.
AOPA urges student pilots, certificated pilots preparing for advanced knowledge tests, and their instructors to be ready to tackle tests that differ significantly from practice tests they may have used. Unfortunately, the FAA does not provide detailed study guides that identify concentration areas to focus training.
Applicants often rely on practice exams to gain a better idea of what to expect on the knowledge exam. Because of the recent unannounced changes in the test bank, practice exams do not necessarily give a full representation of what to expect on the new knowledge exam.
AOPA is not opposed to changes in the knowledge test bank; however, those changes must be coordinated with those providing training for applicants, said AOPA and the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) in a recent letter to the FAA. “Unannounced changes in evaluation standards accomplish nothing for learning; it only results in increased student failures, lost time, travel expense and an extra $140 to $150 paid by the students to retake the exam,” said the letter from Kristine Hartzell, AOPA manager of regulatory affairs, and Jason Blair, NAFI’s executive director.
Question banks affected by the changes include the Fundamentals of Instruction (FOI), Airline Transport Pilot (ATP), Flight Engineer (FE), and possibly other knowledge tests.
Test providers, universities, and flight schools have reported significant increases in the number of failures since the changes were implemented. More than half of those taking the FOI knowledge test since the changes were implemented failed the exam.
There also are reports from flight training programs that previously correlated scores between practice knowledge tests and actual tests for the instrument rating have begun to diverge.
Support for nixing complex time for commercial restated
Removing the requirement would save money and improve safety, AOPA told the FAA
AOPA wrote a letter to restate its support of an FAA proposal that would eliminate that requirement in changes to Part 61 of the federal aviation regulations. In the same letter, AOPA restated its concerns regarding a corresponding proposal to add 10 hours of “advanced instrument training” in place of the complex airplane time.
The proposals are part of a package of changes to flight training requirements, of which the FAA is expected to release a final version soon. AOPA weighed in on the proposals when they were first released and, in anticipation of the final rule, is now underscoring its position on the changes to commercial pilot training requirements.
The association strongly supports eliminating the requirement of the 10 hours of aeronautical experience in a complex airplane in FAR 61.129(a)(3)(ii), explained AOPA Manager of Regulatory Affairs Kristine Hartzell. The proposal would reduce the economic burden on flight schools and students and increase safety. Because fewer single-engine airplanes are being produced with retractable landing gear, “flight schools are forced to maintain aging aircraft solely for the purpose of meeting this requisite,” she said.
For private pilots who do not need the commercial certificate but want to pursue it to increase their skills, cost—including the higher cost of training in a complex aircraft—can be a determining factor.
“If the FAA eliminates the 10 hours of complex for the commercial certificate, it would reduce the cost to obtain the certificate and increase safety by attracting more pilots to pursue a higher level of training,” Hartzell wrote.
Hartzell questioned the FAA’s proposal for replacing those 10 hours with advanced instrument training. The proposal “is not only unnecessary, it doesn’t make sense,” she wrote. “The FAA allows for the issuance of a commercial pilot certificate with the limitation of VFR only.” AOPA suggested that the FAA convene a meeting of flight training providers and industry representatives to determine what type of training should replace the 10 hours of complex airplane time.
Related Articles
