PTC Aptitude Study ?

[UberPilot]

It's rumoured that there was once a study caried out by PTC to identify how aptitude scores correlated to EFT FHT marks and subsequent chance of reaching an FJ OCU. Something along the lines of X aptitude = 75% chance FJ OCU and a 4 at FHT = 90% chance?

Anyone know whether this exists or not? FOI perhaps? Or is it cr*p?

[flipster]

You are correct to a point. There was a study carried out in the mid 90s by PTC. I know this, as my boss at the UAS (I was a QFI) did all the spadework.

Basically, if you got high average or better at a UAS (old syllabus mind you) then you have a 95% chance of getting to a FJ OCU.

If, however, you passed the OASC aptitude tests then you only stood a 85% chance of passing BFJT. This latter chance was based on 2 DERA (forerunner of Qinetic) studies that were carried out in late 80s/early 90s on only 2 BFT courses.

I managed to get to see the DERA studies and they were statistically highly questionable as they used small sample sizes and a statistical 'fudge' to prove the case for aptitude tests. (There were no 'control groups' as no-one who failed the aptitude scores, was allowed to undergo BFT).

I asked for a copy of the UAS report from PTC and was given a polite 'Poke off, sonny'. I suspect you might get them under the Freedom of Information Act now, if you wanted.

I was interested in the background to this, as a number of high-quality studes of mine 'were uncompetitive' in the OASC aptitude scores and were getting turned down as pilots, yet were better 'polers' than some who had passed the aptitude and were offered places in the RAF and university sponsorship - not that they were too bad, mind you.

The fall out from the UAS study in the late 90swas that the UASs were saved the chop. I don't think they will be so lucky this time, much to everyone's chagrin.

[Si Clik]

The RN have continually been reviewing the applicability of both OASC scores and Grading to assess success rates in later training.

There is good correlation with the grading scores but as with the previous post OASC marks are a poor predictor of overall success especially in the fast jet area. This is not to say that they are worthless as they are certainly a reasonably cheap way of filtering the wheat from the chaff. To be able to fully assess them you would have to send people who fail OASC FATs through flying training to prove they would fail, clearly an expensive option.

What tends to still happen is that test banks are trialled with currently successful aircrew to prove that those who have reached the front line would pass the new test.

In my view the tests need a revamp that would enable them to be completed nearer the front line recruiter (as per the GAPAN set) so that we don't waste time and money sending people to Cranwell all the time.

:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

Si Clik

You said that OASC fails would have to be sent through to prove the system. I believe they were back in the 60s. They failed and the system was duly proved.

Seriously the odd one was said to have got through but OASC was seen as a fairly accurate assessment system even when the tests were more suited to flying Spitfires or navigating Lancasters - anyway the trainers were pretty similar to WWII vintage anyway.

My theory though is that the OASC pass mark might be, say 70%. In the 60s when the intake was about 100 aircrew per month the lowest passers were around 70% with the odd wild card.

Later, as recruitment targets dropped but the number presenting at OASC was buoyant so the numbers could be met by those at, say 75% or better. Fail rates should have dropped and 5% suitable candidates would have been rejected.

Then it swings again with insufficient presenting at OASC - my course was 2 u/t nav and 5 failed pilot and was 4 undersubscribed. Only one of the pilots qualified as nav.

In other words there is a continuous review of apptitude scores against success rates.

[flipster]

PN,

The OASC aptitude tests are a good 'first filter'. However, what annoyed me as a QFI, was that perfectly-able pilots were turned down for pilot-training by a set of tests that MAY have pointed to the fact the applicant MAY not have been a good prospect for pilot. But these people had ALREADY proved they could fly well in REAL ac, in REAL conditions and most went on to fly really well - in either civil or mil world. The QFIs are perfectly capable of deciding the students'/applicants' real potential - in the air at least.

I was unaware that previously, OASC 'failures' were allowed through the net into training. It was not mentioned by OASC when I visited them and I remain sceptical that this was so! But back at the height of the Cold War, we must have needed an awful lot of bums on seats, so who knows?

Incidently, I hear that OASC have changed the emphasis on aptitude scores slightly. Now, if an applicant has done well at EFT and, as long as they have passed the base-line aptitude score (rather than the variable 'competitive' scores), their aptitude score is ignored. I am not sure, however, that there has been any investigation (other than statistical analysis), to corrleate whether higher aptitude scores point to a better chance of passing BFJT. Any ideas?

Incidently, I spent a few days as an interested QFI and was actually quite impressed with the OASC selection procedures (bar the rigid application of aptitude scores). The Part 2 is actually quite fair - I was allowed to monitor Part 1 interviews and then watch the same people go through Part 2 (which Selection Staff do not do). It was eye-opening to see the correlation between the two, especially under stress. This changed my view of OASC and made me realise that even in 3 years flying training, the UASs couldn't quite reproduce this unless we spent awful lot of time building tripods and crossing 'shark-infested custard'.

However, on my UAS we did do some of this, including survival exercises on the Welsh Mountains. Funnily enough, the good studes were still good but we did manage bring out the best in a few quiet ones.

The bottom-line is that UAS QFIs now decide a student's flying potential not a computer game - which is a leap forward.
Bravo OASC!