Oxford Advice Please!

[ANW1988]

I recently attended Oxford’s skills assessment process. I failed the group exercise section of day 2 :rolleyes:. However, I passed all other elements with respectable scores. I have been invited to retake the said failed section within 3 months.

My psychological profile came out as ‘some concerns’ around the aspect of team leadership. I was advised it was the team leadership aspect of the group exercise that I could improve on, so these match up quite accurately.

In my opinion, I know I have team leadership in me, and could make a good shot of it when I return. However, this maybe didn’t show on the day and only have myself to blame :ugh:.

My question (finally!) is…looking to the future, will airline employers look at a failed first skills assessment negatively? Would this affect employability at the end of an APPFO course? Also I have read an article from someone who was required to waiver the skills guarantee Oxford offer due to major concerns over his psychological profile. I wouldn’t say mine were highlighted as major, but there were ‘some concerns’ which they were willing to overlook. Would I be asked to waiver the skills guarantee?

Finally, in all honesty, am I cut out for this career? I am only 22 years of age, so believe I can develop my team leadership skills which were the only thing missing at the assessment.

This is a question based around the fact that (God forbid) I pass the retake.

Thanks in advance :ok:

[GAZ45]

Take the test again and see what happens.

[Whirlygig]

Please do not take their assessment seriously; secondly please consider other training alternatives, please do not fall for marketing hype and lies and lastly, please do a lot more research before you embark on training.

To give you an idea .. I had the opportunity to take the assessment at OAA. I passed every section with flying colours except the hand-eye co-ordination and was told I did not have the aptitude to fly a helicopter. I had a CPL(H) at the time!!

There are many training schools other than OAA and I would suggest you look at modular training.

To answer your specific question, I doubt an airline would even know about your failed assessment, much less care about it.

Cheers

Whirls

[Genghis the Engineer]

What Whirly said.

G

[welliewanger]

The tests are only a guide. Like the weather man can only make an "educated guess" the tests are also fallible. Nobody's perfect (even me!)

I doubt any prospective employers would see the report from those tests. However they are likely to see the final report from the FTO when you've completed the training and (particularly in a school like Oxford) it will have a bearing on whether you get a recommendation.

Too many people on this forum have a huge "integrated schools are con-shops" chip on their shoulder. I've heard that many of these people also only buy Netto's baked beans and think that Lambrini's just as good as Moet (they're both sparkling white wines aren't they?)

Are you cut out for this career? If you want it badly enough and you have the aptitude, then you only need the attitude to change your approach to leadership / teamwork situations. It comes naturally to some people, others have to work on it. Emphasis on the work part.

Good luck.

[OutsideCAS]

Too many people on this forum have a huge "integrated schools are con-shops" chip on their shoulder

Well, that might be because at this given moment in time, whilst not con-shops, they certainly give a hugely biased opinion on what they can and cannot do regarding employment - and with regard to the Oxford one, if you really think that being integrated helps you get into Ryanair, well think on my friends, it can all be done by saving those hard-earned pennies and pounds and going modular at some place like Stapleford (very good) and using the saving to fund that Ryanair Type Rating :E.

And before anyone asks, not condoning the Ryanair situation - in fact, quite the opposite - wouldn't of wasted my own money on them myself given the choice, especially now they are dying a death on the recruitment front (crap offerings) and seeing the increasing rate of attrition of senior captains to better airlines - no future there guys, leave the irish carrier to slowly fail because of its relatively short-sighted treatment of people.

[MIKECR]

Finally, in all honesty, am I cut out for this career?

Have you tried any flying lessons yet? Dont take that question the wrong way, I mean it genuinely. There are lots of people out there who I suspect wouldnt hesitate in bankrupting the bank of mum and dad in the hope of being a pilot but ironically havent even touched the controls of an aeroplane before. Sometimes the reality doesnt live up to the dream.

[CAT3C AUTOLAND]

I couldn't agree more with WhirlyGig.

I failed god knows how many 'assessments' back in the 1990's, and to be honest, a lot of that stuff is nonsense.

Just out of interest, do you have to pay for that assessment, or is that a silly question?

[ANW1988]

Thanks for your replies so far ladies and gents...

Whirlygig - I've done a lot (and I mean a lot!) of research into every possible training alternative. Oxford, for reasons other than 'marketing hype and lies', are my first choice. Maybe stupidly in some people's opinion - however, if I'm going to be spending all that money, I'm going to be doing it with the FTO I personally feel has the most to offer. I respect your comment, as it is a valid one from an individual who sounds like they have been in the business a long time. However, the question was centred around their skills assessment, rather than which FTO.

welliewanger - as you can see it's my first post on this forum, but through years of trawling info on here, I can see why you think 'too many people on this forum have a huge "integrated schools are con-shops" chip on their shoulder. Thanks for the advice re teamwork/leadership, and an employers view on the skills assessment. Teamwork/leadership isn't one of my greatest strengths but I'll sure be working hard on it so I can hopefully pull it out on the day.

OutsideCAS - I wouldn't say Oxford have an overly biased opinion on what they can and cannot do regarding employment, would you? I've certainly been given no promises from them, and felt everyone has been relatively honest with me so far, considering the people I've been speaking to are paid to put bums on seats.

MIKECR - yeah, a few here and there. By that I mean a few trial lessons (2.5hrs total) covering the basics, and a bit of time in a glider which I suppose doesn't really count, but helped confirm to me that I want a bird's eye view of the world on a daily basis. It's a long standing dream which I've only recently been in a position to get the wheels moving to try and help make it reality. Unfortunately there is no bank of Mum and Dad - just a well formed plan that will only have a bearing on me should things go Pete Tong.

CAT3C AUTOLAND - there normally is a fee. I've got it for nothing (and rightly so in my opinion) for attending an open day last year.

:ok:

[Flex_Thrust]

Hi ANW1988,
I also failed that assessment for the same reason with repeat test offer.

Read the thread about ‘Modular is cheaper’;

Get a few lessons – my instructor mate took a guy up once who was well keen to go – did a few steep turns and he freaked and wanted to get down;

IMHO now is the time to train. Also despite the fact I failed in OAA, I think they do mould and groom people to be airline ready in addition to the licence. Whether the extra mountain of money is worth it for the likes of FR and EZ I *VERY* seriously doubt;

Have you considered the armed forces? Yes I know there has been a cull recently, but there will still be new entrants each year;

How are you with people in general – can you communicate easier on a one-to-one? Cause that’s what counts;

If you go back to OAA to repeat it, you need to make your presence felt by contributing. I was too quiet and acknowledged that in the debrief – but I just thought what we were doing was cobblers and was more amazed by how certain peoples ego’s just took off – in my opinion they’re the ones you don’t want ;

Consider a PPL in sunny Florida. Do all the exams before you go out though so you can enjoy the flying. Don’t buy the PPL books from the shop they tell you to ‘buy the package’ from – ebay the lot, and do the exams at home. No airline will give a rats about your PPL, BUT a good score is a good score. (You'll get a shock when you come home though, all ATC HATE GA and the rt terminology, ATC procedures and airspace is quite different. The rt really threw me - but it's so much more pleasant to fly there!)

So what do you think of everyones comments?!
All the best…

[ANW1988]

Hi NewKid

Thanks for your reply. Interesting to hear from you, as you're the only other I've come across that failed in the same way!

What's your thoughts behind 'now is the time to train'? I'm no expert myself, but from what I'm reading/hearing, if I were to start the course in 12 months time in Oxford and come out mid-2013, it seems as good a time as any.

Personally the armed forces would be an honour and a privilege - those guys do a great job out there. However, family reasons mean it would never be possible and isn't an option.

With people in general, I'd say (without being big-headed) I'm ok. I'm a friendly kind of guy that likes meeting new people etc. However, I don't think the leadership came out on the day for a few reasons; one being there were some very big characters in my group, and it started to feel more like a competition which obviously it is not. I'm better with people on a one-to-one basis, as showed in my interview score.

A PPL in sunny Florida sounds very appealing! Would it be of any benefit at this stage though, considering the cost? The modular option is the back-up plan should Oxford not materialise...

Thanks :ok:

[Whirlygig]

ANW1988, if you have done a lot of research then you would know that a failed OAA assessment counts for diddly-squat as far as the airlines are concerned and you would also have an inkling whether you're cut out for the career.

I find it interesting that you say you love the bird's eye view of flying a glider. That is so far removed from being an airline pilot. I honestly think you need to do more research into different career paths and different piloting roles.

Cheers

Whirls

[Felix Saddler]

ANW1988,

Oxfords assessment means very little...
Have you tried CTC cadets?

FS.

[ANW1988]

Whirlygig - To be honest, I've never heard the question asked and that's why I'm on here for the advice.

Secondly, I know I'm cut out for the career - but such a result creates an inkling of doubt, which I needed others (useful) opinion on.

I'm aware that there is a bit more to being an airline pilot than the 'birds eye view'. That's why I said my time spent in a glider didn't really count for anything other than confirming I'm comfortable with that perspective of the world.

And to say I need to do more research again - I've done more than you clearly think I have. Posting on here for others opinions is research in my eyes.

[Whirlygig]

I think you missed my point but, never mind. You know about all the training alternatives and all the various career paths so, fill yer boots.

Cheers

Whirls

[ANW1988]

Apologies if I missed your point - I just feel like you were shooting me down for lack of knowledge about the role and responsibilities of a pilot, like another senseless wannabe.

[Felix Saddler]

ANW1988,

Check you're pm's! Should keep you busy for a while! :ok:

FS.

[PBY]

Don't worry about the failed test. These games are only played in England, as far as I know. I went through this monkey test in Easyjet. Who knows, how I did. Because I was not interested in the job right at the interview. And I am still flying airplanes as a captain.
I think the english culture is loosing a touch of reality, what concerns interviews.

[Whirlygig]

The personality that these assessments is looking out for is an extrovert teamplayer ... I'm not quite sure whether leadership qualities are required. In a multi-crew environment, a co-pilot has to be able to have the confidence to alert a captain if they have done something wrong or made a possibly incorrect decision. The captain has to have the humility to accept that from a junior as well.

Leadership tends to imply an hierarchical situation of leader/follower and this is not desirable in a cockpit.

Obviously, the student has to learn to accept criticism. So when concerns were expressed over leadership qualities, it might be that there was too much leadership and not enough teamplying. I'm afraid ANW1988, that I am getting the impression that no-one can tell you anything because you already know it.

QaxqUDd4fiw
Cheers

Whirls

[P-T]

Oxfords tests are better than not doing any tests, but like any test of leadership its down to the assessors individual interpretation of what is good or not. Granted the assessors have been selected for a reason and have assessed many candidates, but nobody is perfect.

Don't forget, some idiots get through (I know of quite a few during my time at OAA ) and some very good candidates don't. It's a guide not a rule.

If an airline looks at your initial assessment I'd be amazed. They just care what your final report says. In fact they don't even see your initial assessment.

Go back, do it again but have a look for some tips on leadership (even if its just lip service).

You passed the important bits, such as the aptitude and interview. Take inspiration from that and get onto an ATPL course while the going is getting good!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Leadership tends to imply an hierarchical situation of leader/follower and this is not desirable in a cockpit.

I disagree with this statement quite strongly. That is a VERY old fashioned view that I'd attribute to, for example, Confucius or Sun Tsu, and frankly was probably fairly dubious even then.

Nobody leads save with the consent, ultimately, of those they lead. Effective leadership very substantially involves consultation and working *with* those you are in a leadership role with or over. An aircraft Captain, or a company chief executive, has a clear ultimate decision making role, but equally if they are any good make very substantial use of every other brain and skillset on board. I'm a great fan of the concept of the level 5 leader (http://www.imaginal.nl/articleLevel5Leadership.htm) as proposed by writer Jim Collins, one of my favourite management writers who defines such leaders as having a great deal of humility, a high level of understanding of the organisation that they're leading, and a high degree of motivation for success.

Some of Jim Collins stuff will give some great insights on leadership in general - in particular I like his book "Good to Great"; in an aviation context Chesley Sullenberger's autobiographical "Highest Duty" is as good as you're going to get in describing the leadership role of an airline pilot.

Becoming a good leader of-course, takes work like any other skill. You can read all the books you like, but taking the lead in running a Scout Group, a drama production, a community project, a company - will teach you stuff that books never will alone.

G

[ANW1988]

Felix Saddler - thank you for the information. All seems very useful and will make sure I spend some time using the info you have given me. :ok:

Whirlygig - No, I wasn't enough of a leader, and too much of a team player - that was the issue. I was coming up with creditable ideas, just not pushing them through. I'm willing to take advice from anybody, just not insults.

P-T - thank you for your thoughts. A useful input.

Genghis the Engineer - again, thanks alot. Some really useful reference points there. They may help towards my understanding that is the grey area between leadership and decision-maker :)

[DavidFlies]

I'm willing to take advice from anybody, just not insults.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. Quite frankly I was shocked by how utterly rude and patronising Whirlygig was to you.

I have my Oxford Aviation Academy Skills Assessment next Wednesday/Thursday. I've prepared through the use of the GCSE Maths/Physics disks. They certainly provide you with an epic three page list of topics to study prior to assessment...!

Sorry to hear you only just didn't make it, ANW1988. Best of luck for your retake...

Kind regards


David

[Whirlygig]

GtE, I don't think I expressed myself very there - I meant that that style of leadership was not desierable i.e. by trying to demonstrate leadership, there is a danger of being OTT and appear hectoring and bullying.

ANW1988, sorry if you think I insulted you; I can't see any insult just my attempt to humourously suggest that you do not know what you do not know.

Obviously failed on both counts.

Cheers

Whirls

[welliewanger]

Whirls:
I'm afraid ANW1988, that I am getting the impression that no-one can tell you anything because you already know it.
Sounds like a lot of captains to me! :ok: (Sorry, it was too easy - meant in the best spirits really)

The "extroverted team player" personality is an easy goal for recruiters. These people are easy to spot and do a very good job.
But the stereotypical extroverted team player isn't necessarily the only suitable type. I've done quite a bit of reading on personality types and testing. There is one type (of 16 according to Myers Briggs) which makes an excellent leader, but only when they know that they are qualified to lead. The trouble with the types of scenarios given in group exercises is that nobody is qualified to lead them (the scenarios are so alien). Therefore only the cocky (for want of a better word) candidates shine through. These people will tell people what to do even when they don't actually have a definite solution to the problem.

Unfortunately the type I refer to only constitutes about 1-2% of the population, so it's hard to detect. Maybe (and that's a big maybe) you're that type. I know I am, and I know that I'm thriving in my job now. But I also know that I would fail an interview with easyJet.

So I guess what I'm trying to say (in a very round about, slightly drunk, shouldn't be airing my opinions kind of way) is that if the tests say "no" it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't suitable for the job. However if you do all the training and sail through passing with flying colours. You may still go to a job interview, get the same test and still be turned down. Only this time £70 - 100k lighter!

On the flip side, there are other companies which will go out of their way to employ "different" people.

[LH2]

Secondly, I know I'm cut out for the career - but such a result creates an inkling of doubt, which I needed others (useful) opinion on.

You did ask for a "useful" opinion, so mine is probably out of the game but FWIW...

Going by your description, you have been confronted with one of those standard tests that cheap and unimaginative Human Resources departments like to inflict upon candidates for some unbeknownst reason.

There is a clear absence of any credible scientific literature (that I have been able to find anyway) supporting the effectiveness of most of those silly methods. Companies go for it just because the HR drones think it looks good and it hasn't yet been as widely discredited as for example graphology (guessing your character based on your handwriting), or morphopsychology (ugly looking: must be a criminal, hot looking: we want you). Btw, both of those were wildly popular in France for a time.

In the case of OAT, they run those tests to project an image of "respectability" and make-believe elitism, so that prospective customers think they are getting more value out of their money than they actually are. You say that you haven't paid for your "assessment"--at the risk of being (rightly) accused of cynicism, I wouldn't be surprised if they had planned to "fail" you only to have you take the test again, but paying (and "passing") this time.

Personally, I find those techniques dishonest and would be very reticent about spending my money there.

In any case, whether there is something wrong with you or not, nobody would be able to tell from running those tests: they are hogwash. On this question, please read Whirls first post.

[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.

Quite a few airlines use similar tests, both for selecting fATPL and ATPL holders, as well as for choosing their cadets (granted, there aren't many running cadet programmes lately).

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."

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.

All of the major FTOs use selection tests and the large number of people they assist into the career with a large number of airlines speaks perhaps as loud as those with an axe to grind against school XYZ (insert the FTO you dislike in place of XYZ).

If FTOs really are greedy morons as accused, they would just bin the tests and take all comers. 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.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. Just sayin'

The O.P. seems intelligent and thoughtful enough to make up his own mind whether he had a bad day, a false negative, or maybe he does need a bit of work on his team techniques.

[Whirlygig]

He who pays the piper, calls the tune ....

GAPAN (I would like to think) give an impartial view; possibly the only one out there in the UK. The RAF (hence the taxpayer) will be paying for training and therefore, they won't want to waste taxpayers' money in training who may not be up to it.

Airline cadet programmes ... again, who's paying for the training and providing a job at the end of it.

University? Don't know about now but when I did my degree, the taxpayer funded it so the uni has an obligation to ensure that it's not wasted.

Many employers who pay for staff training and qualifications don't want to waste their money and, if after interview etc, find that someone isn't up to scratch, then the employer has to sit that student down and have a difficult conversation with them, usually resulting in a P45.

All of those though, involve a one to one interview (or maybe a board) but an opportunity is given to the prospective student or employee to give a good account of them selves. I cannot think of a similar situation where testing (in groups) is considered the sole method of selection.

However, with flying schools, it's the student who is paying and the student's money to waste.

I am intrigued, not to say a little sceptical, at OAA's business rationale in requiring a test in order to be considered good enough to employ and pay for their services. The only reason I can think of would be to create elitism and, having been through the tests (not to join an airline as I don't want to fly aeroplanes), I came out quite sceptical of the whole process.

An instructor is more likely to be able to judge a student's aptitude and attitude after a few hours in the cockpit than any contrived role-playing scenario. If, after a few hours, the instructors don't feel the student is suitable, then the difficult conversation needs to be had. It's a far more realistic situation and one that earns respect.

Cheers

Whirls

[LH2]

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? :confused:

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 :\

[giggitygiggity]

Adios 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. Surely the point of selection is so that the large FTO's such as OAT and CTC can sell their product (the trained pilot) to the airlines. CTC have a low acceptance rate for their cadet scheme, therefore they can ARGUE that their trainees are superior to competitors because they have carefully selected those who are most likely to succeed. This is what these organisations rely on, they remain selective so they have a basis to argue their case that they are indeed producing the best trained pilots (whether that is true or not can be and has been discussed elsewhere) in the industry because they are selecting the best candidates from the start. The rigours of the tests then hopefully gives the partner airlines confidence in the cadets being put forward by the FTO for jobs.

To the OP, Apply for CTC Wings. Your 22 so you must have had some experience working within teams? If you haven't, think about what you could have done differently in your OAT assessment, try not to be too dominating and just get stuck right in. For their group exercise, all they are looking for is for team players, not airline captains (start worrying about that in about 10 years). Also CTC is only a 1 day assessment so it's all over quickly. When I did it, we got the group exercise out of the way at the start of the day. If you say that your other skill areas were good, the rest of the day should be a piece of cake!

[Artie Fufkin]

When I went through training, I flunked the GAPAN tests, being told politely but firmly that I had "a very low chance of success during pilot training". I passed over RAF Cranwell the other day with a nice view from the left hand seat at 37,000ft. We were told to believe the results as the tests only give incorrect results to a tiny percentage of people.

Clearly there are no tests out there that are 100% fool proof.

The Oxford tests always receive a huge degree of scepticism on this forum but most seem to miss the obvious point. Most airlines these days will put you through an assessment involving computer/joystick, team exercise, interview, pschye test and sim profile. If Oxford flag up something during their aptitude test, chances are an airline will too (On the day I went through, the guy in charge of proceedings was involved with recruitment at an airline).

They say that whilst personality cannot be changed, behaviour can be modified. I'm not the most natural born leader and I accept that seeing as this is part of my fundamental character, I never will be. However, I have learnt how I am expected to behave and have managed to modify my behaviour sufficiently to progress in this career.

My advise would be to look into what went wrong and work out what they want to see. I found getting the balance right between leadership and team skills was an absolute tightrope.

[hollingworthp]

These tests are becoming more prevalent for experienced hires.

AFAIK NetJets used the OAA/EPST software on their prospective hires back in 2007 (when they were still recruiting).

[Dick Whittingham]

When I was deeply involved in RAF flying training I was briefed by the Scientific Staff that detailed analysis of RAF selection tests showed that the only factors in selection that gave a better than random prediction of success were youth and previous flying experience.

But the RAF training system is (was) not the same as the civilian system so this is not directly transferable. For example, we expected to have to train out poor leadership, poor co-operation and overconfidence as well as teaching flying skills

Dick

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I've a degree in Psychology specialising in Psychometric Testing. My final year dissertation was "Designing a battery of aptitude tests that predict success in Air Cadet motorglider training". I have taught people to fly at PPL, CPL/IR level at both small and large Integrated flying schools. I have passed RAF pilot selection more than once and failed BA pilot selection more than once and a couple of others each way inbetween. I have been involved with the introduction of flying school selection tests and I've flown with many new First Officers on B737/A320's who have come from every conceivable background and training route.

There's cock all difference.


Don't be chuffed if you pass. Don't be gutted if you fail.


Where the value of the various selection tests lies is that when you're testing a wide-population of applicants the tests can help exclude the two thirds who would probably struggle or who are a bit weird.

So airlines and large FTO's like them because for the sake of a couple of hundred quid they get rid of two thirds of their training headaches which cost thousands.


What the tests don't do is tell you you're going to be a good pilots or can't be a pilot. There are so many social and environmental factors that a days aptitude testing is meaningless.


I'll give you a top tip. Never ever think you're special because you passed the RAF, Oxford, somewhere, anywhere, GAPAN or anything selection tests because you're not. People hearing your will most likely either hate you, pity you, resent you or one in a million will be in awe of you. The same applies to whichever school you went to. They teach you to pass a test just like learning to drive. That's all you are, a newly licensed driver who had L plates on last week. For Gods sake don't expect anyone to be impressed that you learned to drive with Red, the AA or the British School of Motoring.

They won't be. Its ridiculous.

But because the difference is thousands and thousands of pounds people persuade themselves otherwise.

Really. Its that simple. BSM or the AA charge the top rate for driving lessons and you'll be in a shiny new Mini.

The local driving instructor uses a 3 year old Fiesta and charges a third less.

Do you think you're a better/worse driver as you leave the test centre in the Mini or the 3 year old Fiesta? Do you think I as a lorry driver with 800,000 miles of HGV miles under my belt thinks either of you is anything other than a grossly inexperienced young tyke with a lot to learn? Do you think anybody will be able to tell who trained you to mirror, signal, maneuver? Is your emergency stop somehow superior? :rolleyes:


It really is as simple as all that.


WWW

[BoeingDreamer]

ANW1988 - I think more then the fact that you failed in house aptitude test, the real issue is are you really prepared for what is to come?

Do your OAA, get into £90.000 debts, pay your TR another £20.000 and then go and get a job earning £1200 a month.

Now if you have done that calculation, and then still think OAA is the BEST option out there, you should have an additional look at the Modular route, which will set you back around £40.000 from 0 hours, and you will still have money to pay for your TR, because no company at the moment will pay for your TR.

I would rather question your sensibility!

Go figure that one out £110.000 vs £60.000 in cost, what you prefer? :ugh: