Originally Posted by
Adios
As for the value of pilot selection and aptitude tests, nobody on Pprune questions the merit of GAPAN or RAF tests, but then they turn and say those with a for profit business model are manipulating doe eyed wannabees with selection testing.
I have never seen such an argument being put forward.
Also I am not familiar with the selection process in the RAF. Are you trying to compare RAF pilot selection with FTO provision of services? If you can propose a framework in which that can be done, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Quite a few airlines use similar tests
Yup. To quote myself:
[...]those standard tests that cheap and unimaginative Human Resources departments like to inflict upon candidates[...]
OAT are just copying this ****e from today's corporate HR handbook, for reasons given previously.
Generally speaking, a company or department using the methods described is concerned with form rather than content, following the trend as it were, without putting any thought on the validity and efficacy of their system. That tends to show a penchant for bureaucracy (probably a top heavy company with lots of hangers-on) and lack of critical thinking (following the pack, rather than innovating).
As you can hopefully see, my commentary on the use of such tests is not limited to OAT--it extends to any situation in which those are used uncritically.
So what we have is a case where some organizations are seen as credible and some are not and therefore, their tests must be "hogwash."
That's the wrong inference. A better one would be that using methods of unascertained validity detract from an organisation's credibility.
There may be rubbish tests and rubbish testers out there, but every company that hires people uses some sort of filtering technique and so does every university and every Integrated fATPL course. All of them will result in both false negatives and false positives, but a for profit company couldn't stay in business very long if they had too many of either.
I take your point and agree with your concluding assertion, but I dispute that there is a causal link between the use of certain tests and techniques and effective discrimination of unsuitable candidates beyond the placebo effect. Of course, this is just my opinion--I am not aware of any experimental studies in this area.
If FTOs really are greedy morons as accused,
I do not think anybody has said that (so far). They are businesses: they are there to make money selling a service. Apparently part of that service is instilling in the candidate an illusion of adequacy
For my part, I find that questionable, but I suppose that depends on one's ethical values and if at the end of the day, the candidate is intent on spending his {own,bank's,parent's} money, I can see the temptation of being the one to relieve him of it rather than letting the competition do it. This is perhaps an area where an industry code of conduct would be welcome.
they would just bin the tests and take all comers.
Do they not?
If wannabees are such dimwits that they need to be made to feel they are elite in order to get them to train as a pilot...well, that's the best argument I've heard yet for why there ought to be some selection tests.
From what I've seen that selection does indeed take place, but occurs at a latter stage.
That starts the moment the candidate completes his training. More than half the people I met while getting my licences gave up before their first renewal--interestingly, only the ones who took
any flying job they could find (skydiving, aerial photography, ...) ended up getting job offers. And this was in the days of abundance.
Others simply never made it, despite being very good pilots. The ones I have in mind, I think they failed the "would I want to fly with this guy" test (top blokes, but not sufficiently reliable from a subjective point of view).
Others get knocked back either at the technical interview, or (ouch!) during their type rating. Then there is the odd one who doesn't pass his line training, and finally, those who end up in the "black book".
Btw, I have no axe to grind, and no beef with any particular school or any section of the training establishment. Just having a discussion for the sake of it... while I procrastinate
