A37575
30th Nov 2013, 12:49
Airline pilot interviews generally follow a common thread. Aptitude tests, interview and perhaps a simulator test. Depending on the airline, the interview may also include searching questions on technical knowledge. There are even books available that have a comprehensive list of technical questions a candidate is wise to study.
Cathay Pacific interviews for example include knowledge of high speed flight, meteorology, icing and engine theory as well as performance questions. On the other hand, Jetstar interviews do not contain technical questions but rather concentrate on human factors or how well do you get on with your fellow crew member. It could be that Jetstar assume that the qualification of CPL is enough proof the candidate has technical competency and that in the recruitment process, Human Factors knowledge is more important than overall technical knowledge.
.
Aptitude testing varies between airlines. One thing is for certain and that is fail the aptitude test and you don’t have a job. For example, Jetstar include a logical thinking exercise called flight planning where the candidate is given a typical scenario of weather, performance and several airports and chooses which airport is suitable.
One particular candidate, an experienced general aviation pilot, gained excellent marks in the Boeing 737 simulator assessment, only to be told he wasn’t the right stuff for Jetstar because he failed the flight planning scenario. It’s a good bet many more candidates were unsuccessful for similar reasons. They could fly the simulator well but picking the wrong airport in the flight planning game was considered a worse sin that picking one’s nose at the interview. Opinions vary on the effectiveness of aptitude tests. As a means of culling hundreds of airline applicants they have their place.
A 21 year old, 1500 hour general aviation pilot was called to Sydney for a Qantas interview. He was a grade one instructor as well as a current charter pilot on twins. He never got beyond the first day aptitude test. Fortunately he was later accepted by Ansett and was on the 767 when Ansett folded. Within weeks, he was accepted by a highly regarded major overseas carrier. Within three years he had an A320 command and a few years later an A330 command. Not bad for someone that never got past first base at the Qantas interview.
In the 1950’s, an 18 year old applied to join the RAAF. Part of the aptitude tests in those days consisted of sitting in a booth and moving a rudimentary Tiger Moth type joy-stick to “fly” a ping-pong type ball around a screen. Try as he may, he could not place the ball where it should be and was told he failed. Not only that, but the flight sergeant that supervised the test said the test was practically infallible and if you couldn’t fly the ball it was God’s own proof you lacked the brains and coordination skills to be a pilot. But good fortune was at hand.
The flight sergeant was friends with the 18 year old candidate’s father. They had been through the war together. As a favour to the father he fiddled the numbers and gave the lad a pass – but not without warning him he probably would be scrubbed on RAAF Pilots course because the aptitude test never lied.
Well, not only did the now 19 year old get his RAAF wings but he went on to fly Mustangs, Sabres,and Meteors and later as a Wing Commander commanded a C130 Hercules squadron at Richmond. Now here is the interesting part.
One of his postings was Commanding Officer of the RAAF Recruiting Centre at Rushcutters Bay, Sydney where he had initially joined up. He was now a Squadron Leader. One evening when the staff had gone home, he went into the aptitude test room and tested himself on the joy-stick ping pong ball contraption. He failed. He tried again and failed again. Read into that what you wish. But he sure could fly a Mustang...
Let’s look at the simulator assessment used by some operators. Jetstar candidates are tested in a Level 5 Boeing 737 Classic simulator. A real simulator - not a flight training device or FTD. Before that, the candidate is sent a list of airspeeds, power settings and nose attitudes to study. The test consists of general low speed handling, plus ILS and NDB approach which are flown raw data and no automatics. The instructor is responsible for selecting landing gear and flaps. The candidate is not required to brief the instrument approaches. The test is virtually flown as a single pilot operation. There are no standard airline call-outs. The instructor merely observes the general smoothness of handling as well as the instrument flying standard of the candidate. Most candidates are experienced general aviation pilots on light twins and some are from the regionals. Their flying skills are generally very sound.
Because there is no requirement to remember Boeing 737 checklists, company standard call-outs or conduct instrument approach briefings, the advantage of this policy is the candidate can give his full concentration to instrument flying without the additional hassle of remembering mandatory call-outs, and the parent company SOP.
Each company has different simulator assessment policies. Cathay Pacific candidates are tested on a Boeing 747 full flight simulator. A briefing sheet, with standard calls are provided. Keep in mind that, apart from cadets, the majority of applicants for Cathay Pacific, have extensive previous jet experience.
In Australia, there are several operators that use a Microsoft based generic Boeing 737NG flight training device as an assessment tool. The candidate is sent a blurb on the procedures to be expected and the test is based upon a two crew operation. The company supply a support pilot who is PNF. However, the company test includes much more than a demonstration of the candidate’s instrument flying ability. The candidate is told the primary objective of the simulator assessment is to evaluate Adaption and Learning Abilities, CRM and Communication skills, Decision Making Skills, Instrument Flying skills, Spatial Orientation and manipulative abilities. All this after a short 30 minutes briefing and 45 minutes in a replica of a generic Boeing 737cockpit..
The candidate is given a list of out of tolerance calls common to most airlines. He must first learn these. In addition to the challenge and response checklists which form the before take-off, after take-off and landing checklist which the candidate must commit to memory, the candidate is also tasked with remembering every one of the company published standard calls - of which eleven are listed. During the conduct of the simulator flying, the support pilot will call any time the candidate goes outside the published company standard tolerance. For candidates not rated on a Boeing 737, naturally there will be frequent minor excursions beyond company tolerances and this inevitably leads to a constant barrage of “support” calls.
It would be logical to expect type rated pilots to have all these standard operating procedures off pat and in fact similar procedures are common to most airlines with 737’s. But for someone who has not flown a real 737 to be expected to not only hop in a FTD 737 replica that does not have the fidelity of a level 5 simulator, and fly within command instrument rating limits straight off, and be assessed on their memory of company standard calls, and checklists, is surely too much to ask of a candidate – especially if the candidate has been used to flying single pilot IFR.
As all this is happening in 45-60 minutes, the assessing person observing the test is busy making notes on the candidate’s (quote) Adaption learning abilities, CRM and communication skills, decision making skills, instrument flying skills, spatial orientation and manipulative skills. That is some test…
How can an assessor, within one hour or less, conduct an honest and accurate evaluation of a candidate’s true ability to be a competent first officer, when the assessment requirements as laid down in the company SOP are so numerous?
Recently, a number of experienced 737 pilots flying for a South Pacific operator underwent an aptitude test conducted on the internet on behalf of an Australian jet equipped charter company. The cost of each aptitude test at around $170 was borne by the applicants. Every applicant failed the aptitude tests. They didn’t even get as far as a simulator test. Indeed, an astonishing situation.
Within the handling limit of a one hour simulator session, what should be the aim of the exercise? For instance, should it be simply to have a good look at the candidate’s general handling and instrument flying ability? In other words, Jetstar style test.
Or within the one hour limit, besides testing of manipulative ability in a type of simulator foreign to the candidate, should the candidate be simultaneously assessed on his knowledge of company SOP, checklists, flight tolerances, adaption/learning abilities, CRM and communication skills, two pilot crew procedures, decision making skills, instrument flying skills, spatial orientation and manipulative abilities? Is that not a bridge too far?
More to the point, is this not an unfair imposition on the assessing pilot, who must surely have great difficulty in making a fair and studied assessment of each listed item, without resorting to a box ticking exercise?
Comments invited.
Cathay Pacific interviews for example include knowledge of high speed flight, meteorology, icing and engine theory as well as performance questions. On the other hand, Jetstar interviews do not contain technical questions but rather concentrate on human factors or how well do you get on with your fellow crew member. It could be that Jetstar assume that the qualification of CPL is enough proof the candidate has technical competency and that in the recruitment process, Human Factors knowledge is more important than overall technical knowledge.
.
Aptitude testing varies between airlines. One thing is for certain and that is fail the aptitude test and you don’t have a job. For example, Jetstar include a logical thinking exercise called flight planning where the candidate is given a typical scenario of weather, performance and several airports and chooses which airport is suitable.
One particular candidate, an experienced general aviation pilot, gained excellent marks in the Boeing 737 simulator assessment, only to be told he wasn’t the right stuff for Jetstar because he failed the flight planning scenario. It’s a good bet many more candidates were unsuccessful for similar reasons. They could fly the simulator well but picking the wrong airport in the flight planning game was considered a worse sin that picking one’s nose at the interview. Opinions vary on the effectiveness of aptitude tests. As a means of culling hundreds of airline applicants they have their place.
A 21 year old, 1500 hour general aviation pilot was called to Sydney for a Qantas interview. He was a grade one instructor as well as a current charter pilot on twins. He never got beyond the first day aptitude test. Fortunately he was later accepted by Ansett and was on the 767 when Ansett folded. Within weeks, he was accepted by a highly regarded major overseas carrier. Within three years he had an A320 command and a few years later an A330 command. Not bad for someone that never got past first base at the Qantas interview.
In the 1950’s, an 18 year old applied to join the RAAF. Part of the aptitude tests in those days consisted of sitting in a booth and moving a rudimentary Tiger Moth type joy-stick to “fly” a ping-pong type ball around a screen. Try as he may, he could not place the ball where it should be and was told he failed. Not only that, but the flight sergeant that supervised the test said the test was practically infallible and if you couldn’t fly the ball it was God’s own proof you lacked the brains and coordination skills to be a pilot. But good fortune was at hand.
The flight sergeant was friends with the 18 year old candidate’s father. They had been through the war together. As a favour to the father he fiddled the numbers and gave the lad a pass – but not without warning him he probably would be scrubbed on RAAF Pilots course because the aptitude test never lied.
Well, not only did the now 19 year old get his RAAF wings but he went on to fly Mustangs, Sabres,and Meteors and later as a Wing Commander commanded a C130 Hercules squadron at Richmond. Now here is the interesting part.
One of his postings was Commanding Officer of the RAAF Recruiting Centre at Rushcutters Bay, Sydney where he had initially joined up. He was now a Squadron Leader. One evening when the staff had gone home, he went into the aptitude test room and tested himself on the joy-stick ping pong ball contraption. He failed. He tried again and failed again. Read into that what you wish. But he sure could fly a Mustang...
Let’s look at the simulator assessment used by some operators. Jetstar candidates are tested in a Level 5 Boeing 737 Classic simulator. A real simulator - not a flight training device or FTD. Before that, the candidate is sent a list of airspeeds, power settings and nose attitudes to study. The test consists of general low speed handling, plus ILS and NDB approach which are flown raw data and no automatics. The instructor is responsible for selecting landing gear and flaps. The candidate is not required to brief the instrument approaches. The test is virtually flown as a single pilot operation. There are no standard airline call-outs. The instructor merely observes the general smoothness of handling as well as the instrument flying standard of the candidate. Most candidates are experienced general aviation pilots on light twins and some are from the regionals. Their flying skills are generally very sound.
Because there is no requirement to remember Boeing 737 checklists, company standard call-outs or conduct instrument approach briefings, the advantage of this policy is the candidate can give his full concentration to instrument flying without the additional hassle of remembering mandatory call-outs, and the parent company SOP.
Each company has different simulator assessment policies. Cathay Pacific candidates are tested on a Boeing 747 full flight simulator. A briefing sheet, with standard calls are provided. Keep in mind that, apart from cadets, the majority of applicants for Cathay Pacific, have extensive previous jet experience.
In Australia, there are several operators that use a Microsoft based generic Boeing 737NG flight training device as an assessment tool. The candidate is sent a blurb on the procedures to be expected and the test is based upon a two crew operation. The company supply a support pilot who is PNF. However, the company test includes much more than a demonstration of the candidate’s instrument flying ability. The candidate is told the primary objective of the simulator assessment is to evaluate Adaption and Learning Abilities, CRM and Communication skills, Decision Making Skills, Instrument Flying skills, Spatial Orientation and manipulative abilities. All this after a short 30 minutes briefing and 45 minutes in a replica of a generic Boeing 737cockpit..
The candidate is given a list of out of tolerance calls common to most airlines. He must first learn these. In addition to the challenge and response checklists which form the before take-off, after take-off and landing checklist which the candidate must commit to memory, the candidate is also tasked with remembering every one of the company published standard calls - of which eleven are listed. During the conduct of the simulator flying, the support pilot will call any time the candidate goes outside the published company standard tolerance. For candidates not rated on a Boeing 737, naturally there will be frequent minor excursions beyond company tolerances and this inevitably leads to a constant barrage of “support” calls.
It would be logical to expect type rated pilots to have all these standard operating procedures off pat and in fact similar procedures are common to most airlines with 737’s. But for someone who has not flown a real 737 to be expected to not only hop in a FTD 737 replica that does not have the fidelity of a level 5 simulator, and fly within command instrument rating limits straight off, and be assessed on their memory of company standard calls, and checklists, is surely too much to ask of a candidate – especially if the candidate has been used to flying single pilot IFR.
As all this is happening in 45-60 minutes, the assessing person observing the test is busy making notes on the candidate’s (quote) Adaption learning abilities, CRM and communication skills, decision making skills, instrument flying skills, spatial orientation and manipulative skills. That is some test…
How can an assessor, within one hour or less, conduct an honest and accurate evaluation of a candidate’s true ability to be a competent first officer, when the assessment requirements as laid down in the company SOP are so numerous?
Recently, a number of experienced 737 pilots flying for a South Pacific operator underwent an aptitude test conducted on the internet on behalf of an Australian jet equipped charter company. The cost of each aptitude test at around $170 was borne by the applicants. Every applicant failed the aptitude tests. They didn’t even get as far as a simulator test. Indeed, an astonishing situation.
Within the handling limit of a one hour simulator session, what should be the aim of the exercise? For instance, should it be simply to have a good look at the candidate’s general handling and instrument flying ability? In other words, Jetstar style test.
Or within the one hour limit, besides testing of manipulative ability in a type of simulator foreign to the candidate, should the candidate be simultaneously assessed on his knowledge of company SOP, checklists, flight tolerances, adaption/learning abilities, CRM and communication skills, two pilot crew procedures, decision making skills, instrument flying skills, spatial orientation and manipulative abilities? Is that not a bridge too far?
More to the point, is this not an unfair imposition on the assessing pilot, who must surely have great difficulty in making a fair and studied assessment of each listed item, without resorting to a box ticking exercise?
Comments invited.