Noted this comment from a successful PPL exam candidate 2008; "Now here's my experience: don't bother at all with CAO, CAR and AIP. They're big, heavy, expensive, and if you don't know where to look you won't find what you need, or will waste time finding it. Every question about regulations that I came across in the PPL exam could be answered straight out of the VFR Flight Guide (VFG)."

Is the advice valid?

Cheers

DrPhil

Probably a reasonable comment, I found that to be the case when doing ppl exam in 2011. That being said, you can't refer to what you don't have in the exam.

For me, only since commencing cpl subject studies did I really get an appreciation of where to find info in the aip etc. Perhaps this is why the VFG is allowed at the ppl level, but not cpl?

Make sure that you have as current a version of VFG as possible, but be aware that it's not updated as frequently as the other regulations. Might also pay to tab relevant sections for easy access (casa limits numbers for some documents).

If you had access to the documents (aip etc) might pay to take them into the exam, but use them only as a last resort, or if you have time to burn at the end of the exam and cannot remember or find the info from the VFG.

Of course, if you've prepared well eg using Bob's books doing practise exams etc, you should have no problems. Remember that many of the questions such as aerodynamics, cloud meterology, loading/performance or navigation questions won't be answerable from those references anyway.

Cheers and good luck.

Nev

Thanks Nev I appreciate the comments.

Phil

Hi Phil,

The VFG is officially all you need at PPL level as long as you are aware it is not updated and may contain the odd bit of out of date information.

The only significant one we have come across so far is the timings for QNH and Temperatures in a TAF are no longer correct. The VFG incorrectly states these values are valid for periods 90 minutes either side of HH, HH+3, HH+6 etc. However current regulations state that these are actually now spot values for HH, HH+3, HH+6 etc and you are supposed to use linear interpolation between the values as required. Subtle difference but could cost a mark in the exam.

Also, please be aware that no tabbing is allowed in the VFG. Details on tabbing can be found here:

www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90074

Cheers,

Rich

Almost forgot, the other clanger relates to Special VFR requirements.

In the VFG it talks about the Special VFR for aircraft being 3000m visibility (page 217) which then drops to 1600 m if operating in Class D airspace (page 298). AIP ENR 1.2.2 however states the visibility requirements are 1600m for aircraft operating under the Special VFR whether you are in Class D or not.

In case you are interested, you can also check out the online E-Text version of the VFG here:

www.bobtait.com.au/forum/helpful-tips-an...es-guide-free-e-text

Cheers,

Rich

Hi Rich

Thanks, your knowledge and advice is much appreciated. I am getting on with the prep for the exam via a self-directed approach using Bob's books. Several years have passed since I passed the GFPT and in combination with an aging cerebrum the prognosis for sliding on though the PPL exam is guarded. Very grateful to have contact with those know the exam process so well.

Cheers,

Phil

Hi Guys,

I think I may have found another difference between the VFG and the current AIP in relation to Separation Minima for Landing.

The question that I was answering when I discovered this was

At a non controlled aerodrome you should not continue an approach beyond the threshold of the runway until the preceding flight has
a) landed and is at least 1000 m from the threshold
b) landed and has vacated the runway no matter how long the runway is
c) taken off and is at least 500ft AGL

My gut feel was (b), but after reading page 292 of the VFG I chose (a), which was wrong. After reviewing the AIP, it doesn't go on about any distances or MTOWs as the VFG does, it simply says "has vacated it and is taxiing away from the runway".

Am I correct in saying this or have I missed something.

Thanks!

The CASA Reference for that question has changed since the question was written. It used to say that you couldn't land at all if the runway was occupied no matter how long the runway was. Now it says -


I have changed the wording of the answer by deleting 'no matter how long the runway is'. I have also posted the amendment to the errata page of the web site.

Thanks for your valuable feed-back.

Bob