Artie - I would respectfully point out as well that it is but an indication: if for whatever reason you sat more than one standard distribution below the mean for all the characteristics tested, while past data suggested all those successful had been above that point to within one standard error, you would be the valid exception to the rule, even if all concepts and parts of the CPL/IR came to you as naturally for you than for any of your coursemates.
I confess I really don't understand the above, but put quite simply, I was told politely but firmly that I had no chance whatsoever and should believe what I was told.
I know GAPAN have the most honourable and decent intentions with their tests, but how many fledgling careers have been unnecessarily cut short at Cranwell? The real scandal is we don't know and nor do they!
put a little faith in a huge body of scientific statistical data.
Well that's my gripe. Do they ask for feedback on how the GAPAN test candidates eventually fared in pilot training? I've certainly never been asked. How can they be so certain that their tests accurately reflect the demands of modern civilian pilot training?