Randomisation of the Ratings

[NameCoin]

I've been meaning to post about this topic for a while but never really got around to it. A recent discussion on a Twitch stream prompted me to put aside some time.

One day I was flying on the network, I heard someone taking one of the V-rating exams. The controller had issued an instruction, to which the user replied "that's not in the script". Around the same time period, I had also seen many discussions about people trying the routes offline repeatedly or re-taking the exams X amount of times. The point of the rating system is to help people get up to scratch with VFR and IFR procedures. Hearing above things makes me wonder if that's really being achieved. If the exam briefings tell users exactly what will be on an exam (and in some cases, give an explicit script on what should occur), how can the exam tell the difference between actual understanding and rote regurgitation of the provided briefing? I would think that the former should be expected and encouraged.

To this end, I think that it could be interesting for all of the ratings to have a randomised component. The briefings can serve as an example, but airport pairs, routes, etc..., should be given when the user requests an exam. The I-4 rating seems to be a pretty good example of this. It forces users to know something about flying IFR and using TEC routes, since they cannot prepare in advance for the destination. It might also be interesting to know the pass / failure rate between the I-3 and I-4; it would illuminate the question asked in the previous paragraph.

Thanks for reading.

[HRutila]

No two ratings are ever identical. The script is only a sample of what could be expected.

[asad112]

I see the logic behind your point, but quite frankly, I couldn't disagree more. One of the great things PilotEdge is useful for is bridging a divide that would exist in real life. If you change what is already a moderately challenging task into a extraordinarily challenging task, you then risk shutting off people who can't be bothered to undergo the drudgery of learning an already very complicated skill.

[Ryan B]

I think it's good the way it is

Some people are totally new to the system and having an example of what might happen is a good idea.

[NameCoin]

No two ratings are ever identical. The script is only a sample of what could be expected.

While your statement is technically true, the overwhelming bulk of the script is still valid when the exam is taken. I've done the ratings and encountered no significant departures, if any, from the briefings.

I see the logic behind your point, but quite frankly, I couldn't disagree more. One of the great things PilotEdge is useful for is bridging a divide that would exist in real life. If you change what is already a moderately challenging task into a extraordinarily challenging task, you then risk shutting off people who can't be bothered to undergo the drudgery of learning an already very complicated skill.

I guess I'm not really sure what detail you're talking to. To clarify: I'm suggesting that the current briefings should remain so that people have a sample to learn from and try out on their own - exactly what they are doing now, in some form. When it comes to the actual test, randomising its components allows the user to demonstrate to themselves that they are proficient with the key concept of the lesson. Isn't it desirable to help people establish a foundation, instead of just teaching to the test?

[Kyle.Sanders]

To clarify: I'm suggesting that the current briefings should remain so that people have a sample to learn from and try out on their own - exactly what they are doing now, in some form. When it comes to the actual test, randomising its components allows the user to demonstrate to themselves that they are proficient with the key concept of the lesson. Isn't it desirable to help people establish a foundation, instead of just teaching to the test?

I always suggest the pilots take the Alphabet Challenge after completing the ratings. - http://www.myflightroute.com/atoz.php?

[zerofay32]

Personally, it's up to the learner to apply the knowledge that is learned in any of the rating exams and apply them to "actual' flying situations. Think of the ratings as the lessons and checkride for a private or IFR Certificate wrapped into one. You're going to do these in areas and airspace that is relatively familiar to you even if you're not sure exactly what will happen. But once you get your ticket, you are free to fly wherever you please and must apply what you learned in your local area to areas and situations that may be very different.

Most people on the network are at least new to ZLA and may be new to real world procedures. So having a self study program that lays out the specifics is the best way to ensure that people of vastly different skill levels can be graded evenly and still learn the basics as well as some peculiarities of the local airspace.

For example, does every arc approach look like the one in the I11? No but after flying it you have a better understanding of how to do one and then need to apply that knowledge to the next (different) arc approach.

My 2 cents...

[NameCoin]

Personally, it's up to the learner to apply the knowledge that is learned in any of the rating exams and apply them to "actual' flying situations.

Then why even have the exams? Why not just post the briefings and instruct the user to "try these on your own"?

Think of the ratings as the lessons and checkride for a private or IFR Certificate wrapped into one. You're going to do these in areas and airspace that is relatively familiar to you even if you're not sure exactly what will happen. But once you get your ticket, you are free to fly wherever you please and must apply what you learned in your local area to areas and situations that may be very different.

If you want to use pilot training as an analogy, let's look at the PPL. The student receives cross-country flight experience with the instructor, then is sent away solo. Your statement basically implies that it is sufficient to make the same cross-country trip over and over again, both dual and solo, and it is the responsibility of the student to make sure that it generalises. It's obviously not enough. But for whatever amount you feel is enough, why not let it be demonstrated (primarily for the user's own self)? There is nothing to lose and much more to be gained.

Most people on the network are at least new to ZLA and may be new to real world procedures. So having a self study program that lays out the specifics is the best way to ensure that people of vastly different skill levels can be graded evenly and still learn the basics as well as some peculiarities of the local airspace.

I'm not sure that the concept of "even grading" makes sense here. Setting aside the fact that there can be variations in the execution of the exams themselves, preventing "even grading", there's nothing actually at stake - they're for the user's own learning, as you imply above. The main priority should be to make sure that this is possible.

[zerofay32]

If you want to use pilot training as an analogy, let's look at the PPL. The student receives cross-country flight experience with the instructor, then is sent away solo. Your statement basically implies that it is sufficient to make the same cross-country trip over and over again, both dual and solo, and it is the responsibility of the student to make sure that it generalises.

That's not what I mean. Think of the v2 rating as a dual cross country. The transcript, other information provided, and feedback after a fail acts as the flight instructor. What did the rating cover? Flying VFR to and from class C airports. IMO this provides everything the pilot needs to fly to/from any class C in the US. It is then up to the pilot to try a flight for themselves 'solo' to a different class C any apply what the rating has taught, without the benefit of the supplemental matarial. Does the 'solo' flight need to be a v-rating? No, because it's just v2.1 and feels like no progress is being made even with a randomized component. Some pilots will need the 'solo' flight others will already be comfortable the the procedure.

I think the randomization can easily be achieved on your own outside the rating system.

The I4 is nessesary because the TEC route system is a unique quirk of flying in SoCal that many pilots are not exposed to in training in other parts of the country and if you want to do any amount of IFR flying you need to have a complete understanding of it. IMO the I3 is a dual flight while the I4 is a checkout ride on the tech system. But I thought of it more as I3.1 because I picked up the system pretty easily. I could have (and have) achieved to randomization on my own.

I think the crux of your argument is valid though. There are pilots on the network that try to fly exactly as the script they are provided, right down to reading the radio calls from the transcript. Obviously they are thrown off whenever reality doesn't follow the script (which as noted earlier they rarely do). But these pilots do that because they are just starting out and need a life raft. As they learn and become more comfortable they can rely less on the transcripts as they progress. I think making every CAT and I rating random would cause these types of pilots to go elsewhere, the level of entry would be too high.

[jiva602]

I have flown several of the CAT rating flights, some more than once, and would like to mention that on every single one of the them the process has been different than what is presented in the sample script or flight description. In my case, there have been at the very least two random occurrences in ALL of the flights due to a variety of factors beyond my control. I like the idea of randomization and was both challenged and pleased when special circumstances arose.

However, guides a important and, for some of these flights, I would have no idea what to do and when to do it at any given moment along the way and therefore would not have attempted them without having at least some sort of framework. I understand that there are many resources on the internet and at flight schools form which to learn and then maybe come here and "do the test", but my understanding of PE (perhaps erroneous) is that it is not simply an place for evaluation of skills but also has the potential to provide a complex and dynamic teaching environment.