Aptitute test comparisons

[Danny212]

Hii!

A few days ago I sat the pilot aptitute tests at RAF Cranwell. After several hours spent in front of a computer screen, i got my results back. I was above the minimum threshold in each area, however my total score was 110; where the required mark is 112.

Now I don't want to join the RAF at all. I only sat the aptitute test for a flying scholarship. however I was wondering whether or not anyone can give me some insight as to whether or not the aptitute tests at FTO's are as vigurous and as challenging as the RAF's?

Thanks in advance!:)

[GolfTangoFoxtrot]

Don't sweat, the likes of COMPASS and Pilapt are **significantly** easier than the RAF tests.

[Gav28]

Agree with the above, they are not even comparable. If you can get a mediocre score on the RAF tests you should breeze Pilapt or Compass.

[4015]

Third one to agree with the previous two posters.

The RAF tests are ridiculous in comparison to the civilian ones I've taken, the RAF can afford to pick the absolute best and the tests are set at that higher level - every test taken assumes that the person taking it may end up a FJ bod.

They also work a lot faster and give a much higher stress level than the commercial equivalents.

Think the difference between regular and veteran modes on CoD. I very rarely play computer games, but a quick attempt at a veteran level ended... well... quickly.

4015

[Arfur Dent]

Are these aptitute tests anything like the aptituDe test we old timers did?
Blimey, they obviously don't check your education levels!

[El_Presidente]

Danny, let me put my sensible hat on here (a rarity I'd like to add)...

I was in a similar situation to that which you now find yourself in...Hopes dashed, feeling dejected and peeved.

I wanted to be a SAR winchman - that's the only reason I walked into the RAFCO back in 1995. The rather rotund Flt Lt who conducted my initial interview looked at my education quals and waved that golden ticket under my nose "you are educated sufficiently to apply for pilot/nav, so I suggest that's what we put you forward for".

Clearly I was not going to turn this down. To cut a long story short, I went to Cranwell open minded; surprised myself by negotiating the shark infested custard; passing the selection interview boards; and gaining a pass mark above average on the pilot aptitude tests.

How disappointed was I to receive a letter from DORIS (not my missus at the time) about a month later explaining that I was successful in meeting the standard for Commissioning, but that my chosen Branch was full. Therefore "we are delighted to offer you a Commission in the RAF Regt".

Initially, I was fuming. Then I put things into context. I was 19 years old; employment prospects centred on a dull office management job in Wolverhampton. The Armed Forces had just been subject to one of the most brutal programme of cuts for decades (Options for Change, Front Line First). But they were offering me a Commission, PC, job for life. How bloody lucky was I!!?

Sometimes Danny, we have to look at the bigger picture...You have scored well in your aptitude tests, but just shy of the grade. You are young enough to improve, if you should need to. The RAF would not have invited you to sit the tests, if they did not see something in you they liked, something they want. The Armed Forces have again recently gone through more devastating cuts, yet they still looked at YOU out of thousands of hopefuls who were turned away.

If you want to be a part of the RAF, keep pushing for it. Maybe go off to uni, or maybe try for Direct Entrant recruitment. But work at it. You're on their radar already; it takes a huge amount of effort to even get there.

And even if you do join but don't end up flying for a living, you can still have an awesome career. Plus you get discounted flying at RAF flying clubs; paid to glide through adventure training courses; or you could even apply to Branch Change to Pilot/Nav whilst serving.

Whatever you do, sit down and have a good, long think and talk to contacts you have in the RAF, and of course to your family. Good luck!

:ok:

[GolfTangoFoxtrot]

A great post there El Presidente which will be an interesting read for many but to quote the OP "Now I don't want to join the RAF at all. I only sat the aptitute test for a flying scholarship." :)

[Joe86]

I hope this helps:

I did the pilot tests at Cranwell around 8 years ago, the test was split into 3 sections... pilot, navigator and air traffic controller. I found the flying side ok, maths was hard but not over GCSE level and traffic control I didn’t really understand what they were after?

In the debrief they did not tell me my score but said I passed hand-eye pilot test very well, only just passed observer (maths etc...) and failed air traffic (not surprised). For the Fleet Air Arm they required a good passes in all 3 sections of the test. However during my debrief I was told that my score would make me a good civil pilot. So is the hand/eye test that valuable? General maths ability acceptable?

I am hoping to get a place on a CTC (or similar) cadet programme in the near future, so it’s nice to hear the civil tests are easier ;).

[Poose]

I've sat the RAF tests at OASC twice.
I went first time for Flying & Sixth Form Scholarship back in 1997. Unfortuneatly, I failed... if I recall right, the 'slalom' test. Red spots trickling down the screen. White spot, to be moved over the top of as many of said red spots as possible, using a joystick that moves the white spot left and right... It's been a while... :confused:

Anyhow, I was given the Flying Scholarship to improve my aptitude and asked to return. I did the Flying Scholarship at Cumbria Aero Club on C152s, soloed after 6:25 hours and was rated 'Above Average' on the Final Progress Check... Needless to say, that counted for nothing on my return to OASC when I buggered the test up for the second and final time. Two attempts and you're out. :{

The RAF tests are loaded towards completion of a Fast Jet OCU. If you pass them; statistically you're likely to get through the aforementioned course. FAA tests are the same. The AAC, which I was told that I had passed is loaded slightly different. AAC only use helicopters and Islanders, you see. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that the tests are loaded differently. More of the 'pat your head, rub your stomach' kind of thing, as opposed to quick reactions? Like, I said, I'm no expert.

Interestingly, I sat the CTC tests back in 2006 when there was a decent cadet scheme, that was directly affiliated with Easyjet employment and not this Flexicrew rubbish...
Anyway, I found these harder than the RAF ones, as did a lot of people, who had done both. Needless to say, I didn't pass those either! :ugh:

Prior, to going to CTC I bought the Cockpitweb mock tests, within a day I was getting top scores. :confused:

My opinion is that they're a load of nonsense and only a rudimentary indicator of ability. A friend of mine has just got through the Jet2 selection. Recently, they've decided to use COMPASS. Several experienced pilots, (some TRE's/TRI's) failed this test - to give you a flavour of how relevant these tests are to 'real world' ability.

I understand your concerns, there are a lot of airlines using these tests and now it's just another hoop to get through, which in my opinion doesn't bear a great deal of relation to one's ability as a pilot. That's why we have Skills Tests and regular Simulator Checks... :ugh:
Reinvention of the wheel in my view.
But just an opinion!

[El_Presidente]

Poose, I agree with the thrust of your point - you will always have square pegs that do not fit round holes. I was awful for the first 6 months at IOT...but two particular members of staff there believed in me. Euan Duncan (RIP) was one who fought my corner at chop time, twice. He made the right choice to back me, of course... :E

This is why I think it is important to always maintain flexibilty in any recruitment system. We all have strenghts and weaknesses - a strong academic record does not always translate into success; and yet it's no good being a great handling pilot if you lack the mental capacity to see your mission through.

There has to be some form of initial screening and it seems aptitude tests are the best way for volume processing candidates. Should you fail this then you can still have a crack at a flying career but, it then being self funded, this is often too much an ask for many.

[Climb 350]

As you seem to be quite experienced with aptitude test, can anyone tell me where I can find a good tool to practice numerical reasoning?

There's some online, but they're all quite expensive if all you want to do is have a little practice...:ok:

[Danny212]

Thank you to all of you for your replies to this.

You've helped me to see the bigger picture and not worry too much about my score and instead keep pushing to achieve my lifetime dream. Ofcouse thats what you would do, but after results like this you feel disheartened but this has opened my eyes alot more!

Thank you for all of the detailed responses too...they were fantastic!

I wish you all the best!

Climb350, just go through some GCSE books, anything would help just to get the basic maths going. I never used any software.

[4015]

Aptitude tests are not necessarily based entirely on aptitude.

They can be weighted in different ways for the same test, for example you may be given 'marks' for doing well, but you will also be given as many (if not more) marks for showing consistent improvement as you take the test. They can be weighted for speed, or for accuracy, or for consistency...

At the end of the day, they are only computer algorithms and have as many shortfalls as benefits. As has been mentioned, many an experienced pilot has been told they don't have the aptitude, despite having 20k+TT. Many tests for example appear to penalise smooth but assertive operation during the eye hand coordination tests, despite this is the way pilots are taught to fly, and this is one possible reason for multiple failures - put another way;

The tests are tailored towards fresh bods with little or no flying experience, who are generally young and energetic. Therefore the tests mark quick (and overly?) assertive reactions highly, whereas the more controlled and smooth approach taken by the experienced older captain will be marked down, despite being a more comfortable solution.

These tests are a massive can of worms once you start getting into them, so much so that it really is pointless trying - each of them is different.

Which is why emphasis is (or should be) also put on the personal interviews and other excercises, I can promise you that you would have to do something spectacular to fail a selection process on aptitude test scores alone!

Climb 350: Danny212 is right, just do little bits now and then. For example counting up your shopping bill as you do your weekly food shop, or working out your fuel efficiency and cost per mile as you drive, or estimated time of arrival given your speed and distance remaining... how will that be effected if you have to travel 10miles at a lower speed.... how will that affect your fuel... How much has the trip cost...

No books or courses needed for the mental arithmetic side at all!

[FlyerJoe]

Has anyone sat both types? e.g PTC vs CTC Wings? If so how do they compare in difficulty and content?

Any advice would be great

[Poose]

I agree that aptitude is a useful indicator; where many thousands of applications from non-pilots are received.

But when it is being used as a hard and fast rule to cut qualified pilots out, then I don't agree with it at all.
I can accept it's use in the military selection process, thousands of applicants, where some element of sensible cut off is required. Bear in mind, I got weeded out for the FAA and RAF here. Just the way it goes. :{

But when airlines are using it as a means to sift out qualified and experienced pilots then I'm dead against it. As mentioned earlier, it makes a nonsense of why we have Skills Tests etc.

It is interesting to hear that at the recent Jet2 selection, inexperienced blokes had to do the 'slalom' test, but experienced pilots didn't and could even repeat a failed section. :confused:
Doesn't sound very fair to me.
It appears to me that the very test being employed was 'weeding out' some of the very people that the company wanted to employ... :ugh:
I also wonder how that would stack up regarding employment law; one group of people getting an advantage over the other? For whatever reaon, I always thought that discrimination of any form was illegal...
In my opinion, this defeats the entire object of having this test as part of this selection process; if you're going to interfere with the results by letting one group have another attempt, then why bother with it at all?
As far as I am aware, COMPASS was being used to fully 'weed people' out and reduce the numbers... :ouch:

[caperwin]

It appears that it's difficult to practice certain aspects of the test in advance, but what about the Maths and "verbal reasoning"? Where to go to get up to speed?