Importance of aptitude tests

[Flying-Saucer]

G'day PPruners, long time reader first time poster.

I'm a student pilot, solo nav stage, but what is concerning me is that I have not made it through the 3 aptitude tests that I have attempted for the REX & Jetstar cadetships and the RAAF. I'm not the smartest chap around, but I have worked hard and achieved 90+ grades in school, university, PPL exam & one of the CPL exams that I have done so far so I'm assuming that something must be upstairs :}

How accurate / important are these tests when determining your ability as a commercial pilot? I understand that due to the limited number of places available for cadetships the pass threshold for these tests is often fairly high, but it's still disheartening when a computer tells you that you don't meet the required aptitude to fly a plane!

Thanks.

[mattyj]

They are terribly important..
..to the HR department! Without them, they'd be lining up at centrelink with all the other unemployed and unfortunates!

[Mach E Avelli]

Don't be discouraged. Those tests are designed by trick-cyclists in cahoots with human remains 'graduates' who may have never flown an aeroplane themselves. However, the military and airlines do look for certain attributes that you may not possess. It is their train set.
An example: Young guy I had the pleasure of flying Boeing 737s with. Had literally grown up with the type, knew plenty more about it than the average driver, flew it beautifully and loved it. Became a very competent training captain. Went to an Airbus operator which at the time did NOT select via psych testing; rather by interview and simulator evaluation. Anyway, by his own admission he has struggled with the Airbus. He does not like the technology, nor the flying. Apparently it shows. His progress back to the left seat will be slow compared with his earlier experience.
So maybe the trick cyclists are on to something after all?
But whether or not you have aptitude to fly will be known soon enough. If you are not solo in, say 15 hours, or fail your PPL test then you probably don't have what it takes. But if your progress is normal you probably do.
It is probable that you will have to content yourself with a career outside the military or the airlines. However a search of these forums will show that plenty of pilots have found satisfaction in general aviation and smaller regional carriers.
Plenty guys - myself included - had long, successful and accident-free careers without doing psych tests. Our aptitude was assessed in numerous check rides and gruelling simulator sessions, as well as by dealing with the occasional real in-flight emergency.
I, for one, could never pass a modern psych test. Although I am told that it is possible to practice them long enough to bluff your way through. Whether you would be doing yourself a favour taking that approach is your decision, I suggest.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Ability as a pilot seems to have not as much to do with aptitude so much as inclination.

I have trained and worked alongside all sorts of pilots. Those with mechanical/trades backgrounds are typically very good at the "pilot" part of piloting, but not always so hot on the academic/technical stuff.

Conversely, the guys I have trained or worked with who have a more academic orientation have blitzed the exams and can work wonders on a GPS or a computer, but have to work very hard at the practical stick skills.

Your natural inclination towards academia or mechanical/practical skills seems aligned to what you are exposed to as a kid, or what your parents thought was important.

If your Dad was always tinkering with cars or had you out on a motor bike you will develop different key skills to me, growing up in the city with both parents working in IT/management and strong history of academia.

An aptitude for one or the other is not important in your career - it is your inclination to work hard, identitfy your weaknesses, and develop your skills that will see you succeed in life (regardless of career choice) :ok:

Good luck & work hard

[Checkboard]

Aptitude tests are rubbish, designed to keep HR people in a job.

I underwent the same aptitude test (the RAAF ones) three times over five or so years:


for the "Sir Richard Williams Scholarship" to the RAAF Academy - they loved me, I won the scholarship (only 1 person per state)
For a QANTAS level 2 scholarship - they said I had "a problem with maths" (they back-pedalled a bit when I told them I did a maths/physics double major) - but they failed me.
For a QANTAS direct entry pilot - they were ambivalent and put me in the hold pool.


Now these were exactly the same tests - same words, same physical tests (apparently the guys who did the RAAF tests were poached by QANTAS). So - the same tests by the same person (growing in aviation knowledge and ability) with three different results.

Simply - aptitude tests are worth nothing.

(I have been an airline Captain for many years, BTW)

[ChocksAwayChaps]

"Your natural inclination towards academia or mechanical/practical skills seems aligned to what you are exposed to as a kid, or what your parents thought was important."

What rubbish!
My grandad was a engineer and an amateur clock maker. He was always tinkering with something and I was always right there at his side 'helping'. I lived with the grands for my early years. I used a vice almost as soon as I was tall enough. Also, later, my dad would ask me to 'help' him rewiring the house, this in the days when it was acceptable for non qualified electricians to get involved with wiring.
However, I have no inclination nor aptitude for any kind of practical stuff whatsoever.
I was simply another useful pair of hands.
My job? Psychologist ... and aptitude tester. :p

[hoss]

with that background you should specialise in the 'Milgram Experiment'!;)

[Horatio Leafblower]

Hi Chockers,

I will bow to your professional expertise, I am only relating mypersonal observations over 20 years in the workforce.

Horatio
Amatuer psychologist & gynaecologist

[blackhand]

& gynaecologist Perhaps you could look into the problem:cool:

[Horatio Leafblower]

I certainly know a CASA inspector when I see one... :}

[Trojan1981]

G'day Flying Saucer,

I think they use them to screen personality types more than anything else. I passed ADF pilot aptitude testing, with a band two pass, when I was in the Army. At the time I had only completed Y11, and in that year I had only done maths in society (only one up from vege-maths, MIP)!

I think it was my spacial awareness, co-ordination and attitude that got me through. Each airline might be looking for different attributes.

[Jack Ranga]

This:

What rubbish!

And this:

My job? Psychologist ... and aptitude tester.

Proves your bias. You obviously earn coin from aptitude testing.

I am only relating my personal observations over 20 years in the workforce.

I will take this blokes experience over yours any day of the week. I'll bet my left nut he could pick more succesfull candidates than your fluffy aptitude tests.

[cam]

There are sites online that you can access that allow you to practise on and can give feedback on your results, certainly worth spending some time practising and honing your skills before an interview. These tests can be slanted to favour a certain personality type, but more importantly put the applicant under stress to see how they handle themselves. The more you practise these tests the more confident that you will become:ok:

[Centaurus]

If you are not solo in, say 15 hours,

At first glance, those figures indicate you may have a problem. But in the current general aviation flying school environment, the 15 hour figure is meaningless for several reasons.

Firstly how often are you flying? Are you operating from a busy general aviation airport or a country airport? More important than everything is the competency of your flying instructor. With new instructors coming off the sausage machine lines with barely 250 hours total time, including instructor course, then it is often the case of the blind leading the blind.

[A37575]

Friend of mine applied to join the RAAF as a pilot and failed the hand-eye coordination test (following a bouncing ball with a joy stick type thingie).

The Sergeant who administered the test said he would never make a pilot as these tests did not lie. However (said the Sergeant), as I know your father as he was in the RAAF too, I will give you a pass - but I am warning you,you will never be a pilot as these things don't lie.

My friend got into the RAAF and became a trainee pilot. I was his flying instructor and after successfully getting his `Wings`he flew Mustangs and Sabres and eventually became the CO of a C130 Hercules squadron. So much for "you'll never make a pilot"

Before that posting he became the CO of the RAAF Recruiting Centre in Rushcutters Bay, Sydney where he had done his initial aptitude test. One evening when everyone else had knocked off for the day, he closed the door and had another go at the same hand/eye coordination test. He failed the test again. Draw your own conclusions.

[Mach E Avelli]

I did say "say" 15 hours.
Derived from recent experience at a busy GA airfield where they have a lot of foreign students. They were expected to solo at 20 hours and if they did not, were subject to various reviews before being allowed to continue. Given that these guys had very poor English and little prior exposure to any mechanical transport beyond a bicycle, my 15 hour estimate is what I would expect from a westerner who had at least driven a car.
Way back, solo was typically 6 to 8 hours, but back then we did not have much traffic or radio to worry about.
Certainly, continuity and quality of instruction is important - hence my qualification with the word "say", but any school which is not getting students off solo at about that average point is probably ripping them off or is itself sub-standard.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I will take this blokes experience over yours any day of the week. I'll bet my left nut he could pick more succesfull candidates than your fluffy aptitude tests.

Thanks Ranga! :}

I suppose now is not a good time to admit I do believe in the value of personality screening tests for both single-pilot and multi-crew environments... especially multi-crew.

Personality screening and aptitude tests only form a part of a selection process, but they can be very enlightening to the recruiter if used intelligently.

[Arm out the window]

Not too much point arguing about whether they're any good or not ...

Here's a Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical - say you're the boss of a big flying organisation picking people off the street to pilot your aircraft, and you're oversupplied with prospective employees. How do you cull them, or more charitably speaking, whittle away the excess so you're left with the best?

Hmmm ... use education as an initial sorting device, then have a first stage of testing and interviews (using what you judge to be the best available psych and aptitude tests available, which (crazily enough, pardon the pun) are likely designed with a lot of input from trained psychs. Medicals too.

Going on the results from the first round, pick the cream of the crop and get them back for further interviews and/or testing. Based on who is judged to do best and how many you need, send out offers.

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

On the subject of whether the psychomotor tests are any good as predictors, dunno - anyone got any good long term data?

[Jack Ranga]

HL, personality testing is a bit different to aptitude tests I reckon. And I agree with you on that front.

I know a bloke fairly well that failed the aptitude tests for ATC. He and a mate worked fairly hard, practicing tests that were similar, doing dummy interviews with a boss's wife who was a HR practitioner and boned up (so to speak :}) on maths. This bloke did the aptitude test when the opportunity came around again, he passed by one mark.

When it came to the ATC college this bloke didn't fail one exam and obtained an en-route rating. Comparing his aptitude test results to others on the course, some were much higher on first attempt, some of these people failed in the college.

ChocksAwayChaps cannot tell me that aptitude tests will predict anything other than the candidate can pass an aptitude test. How any organisation has been fooled into thinking that they predict or prove anything baffles me? Maybe it's to generate income for what is probably the most useless department in any organisation, HR.

[DeltaT]

This is fantastic.
I wonder if the mods could make this thread a Sticky thread, kept at the top, so Pilots can always read it and don't loose heart.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Thanks Ranga! :ok:

Boning up with another Bloke's wife was ...

....yeah ok no it wasn't. :oh:

[Mach E Avelli]

...I hope that the other bloke was not your boss. A career limiting move, is that one....

[Jack Ranga]

Gees, I thought you blokes were gunna rag me about boning up over MATHS :E

[Wally Mk2]

...geee Jack Maths has it's advantages................I failed every test at school & I still got to fly a big shinny jet, I must have slipped thru the pyscho net crap:E
Just goes to show that all of today's hairy fairy stuff means Jack, or is that Ranger?:E


Wmk2

[Sunfish]

1. Passing an aptitude test means that you have an aptitude for passing an aptitude test, nothing else.

2. Personality tests can be learned and it is possible to mask most (but not all) personality traits and appear to be what you believe the HR people think they are looking for. This is taught by good lecturers at business school along with reading papers on peoples desks upside down.

Having said that, there has to be some form of screening and one might as well do it on the basis of mental acuity and perceived personality as anything else. THe problem that arises that everyone here is complaining about is false negatives - rejection of people who would make perfectly good pilots.

However it is a lot cheaper than using a method that produces a lot of false positives.....:E

[Anthill]

I've worked at companies that do aptitude testing and also at those who don't. I can't say that I detect a noticable diffence in the on-the-job performance of those who were successful in being employed in each instance. The HR people who devise these tests have spent several years at university studying somthing that is presumably of use in aircrew selection. Perhaps a HR person could write a posting to inform and educate us on this; I remain open minded.

In the world according to Anthill, rather than usingy arcane psychobabble testing (Do you think that pink is prettier than blue??) it really only needs to be determined in the candidate has the litteracy and numeracy skills for the job and has any discernable learning difficulties such as autism or dislexia. Beyond that, I fail to see any point for Myers Briggs or Transactional Analysis tests (apparently I have the "perfect" pilot profile* according to TA, but still didn't get past stage 1 at Qantas).

Good reading and comprehension skills, as well as numeracy skills, are essential for the job. Airlines should test to ensure candidates have at least these qualitites. For example, it is pointless to write a Policy and Procedures Manual if crew cannot correctly interpret the meaning and intent of the written words contained in its pages. It is extremely frustrating to try to apply, say, the fuel or duty time limit policy when you have to sit and explain to the other crew member what the policy actually means and allows.

Unfortunately I have met some pilots who can read but not comprehend. Further, pilots need to be able to comprehend and the apply a policy to a situation. For sound Human Factors reasons, pilots muct be functionally litterate as well as being able to count. There are a variety of ways that numeracy and litteracy can be assessed during pilot recruitment. Candidates can be presented with a complex MEL or Duty Time extension scenario and see how they perform. I support the idea that tests of this nature be used in a selection process.

(* the same TA profile for an "ideal" pilot is also the same for cops, nurses and paramedics: high 'parental' and 'adult' parameters combined with low scores in the 'child' dimension.

[Tee Emm]

Unfortunately I have met some pilots who can read but not comprehend

That sounds like me many years ago. At the time of my retrenchment from a 737 airline I had around 20,000 hours mostly in command. Tried the taxi driving bit but it got too dangerous with the bogan drunks and druggies.

Then saw an ad for Australia Post motor cycle postmen. I had my own little Honda 50cc bike and reckon I could do the job. Besides I thought I would look real smart in those canary yellow get-ups, big crash helmets and big combat boots to kick the arse of any pit bull that was foolish enough to attack a former airline captain. Fronted up at the Moonee Ponds Australia Post (or whatever it was called in those days) and sat down with 20 other potential Honda 50cc hoons. The aptitude test was dead easy. Even a hoon could pass.

A month later received the Dear Tee Emm letter informing me I had unfortunately failed the aptitude test to be a motor cycle postman. Thank you for your interest.:(

[ramble on]

There was a rumour a few years back of an operational F111 driver who for a bit of fun went back to RAAF recruiting in Brisbane to see if he could still get in...

He was knocked back....

[Sunfish]

Be aware that there is an entire industry built around tthe flawed idea that it is possible to predict employee performance on the basis of personality tests - it ain't. For a start, personality is not stable over time (say Two years).

Aptitude testing on the other hand is possible.

For those interested, the entire "personality test" industry was debunked in the 1970's in the United States through a number of very high profile court cases involving discrimination complaints by Black Americans - the companies involved used "Personality Test Results" as their excuse for non promotion. The Corporations lost.

Unfortunately no one told Australia.

Be aware that certain employers are now using sophisticated methods to detect potential workplace psycopaths - which is a very noble aim. I won't explain the technique, but it is effective. My son went through it recently and passed OK - he didn't even know he was being tested for anything until he told me some of the questions they asked.

[Anthill]

Sorry to hear of that TeeEmm. Perhaps your experience was similar to mine. Some years ago a young Anthill was unemployed for 2 weeks and really wanted a job. The CES (remember them?) saw that I had a motorcycle licence and sent me off to Melbourne City Council for assessment as a Traffic Warden.

I was given a psychmetric test and an interview. At the interview, I was told that I had failed the aptitude test. The woman from HR told me that I was too imaginative and empathetic for that line of work. Simply, I would not make a good Traffic Warden.

Somehow, I was quite relieved...

:p

Sunfish, perhaps personality tests could now be based on something tried and true...like Star Sign. ;)

[pilotchute]

We used to put one of our staff in a group of would be applicants at a place I used to work when we were having group selection. They would observe the candidates when they thought they weren't being "observed" by us. What it proved time and again was the way people acted when they were being themselves could be vastly different to how they acted when being in an interview scenario. The ones that looked perfect on paper were often the ones who got the worst assessment from our insider.

"Massive ego" was usually the cause of a rejection from a seemingly perfect candidate.

[Wally Mk2]

Aptitude test= Humans testing Humans, now there's a conundrum !:)

It's really a 'feelgood' industry set up to move the responsibility of hiring the right person to someone else.
You can make 10 airframes identical but you will NEVER make 10 pilots identical despite all the HR/CRM/ Human Factors & Aptitude testing crap!


Wmk2

[drpixie]

Flying-saucer,

Remember, the real purpose of aptitude tests is only to select a small group of people (who will be further interviewed) from a large group of applicants.

The company is not trying to select the best applicants - just in reducing applicant numbers to something reasonable. If they were really interested in selecting the best applicants, there would be lots of follow-up studies to tune the tests - never heard of that happening.

So don't put any concern in test results - continue on just the same.

(I have a similar story to ramble-ons' - close friend - current aircrew - who did the aptitude test with his airline and was told don't-both-calling-us :rolleyes:

[bmgc]

aptitude tests...just another hurdle to jump over mate. no one likes them but if you want to fly the big birds then practice (at app tests) makes perfect.

currently doing tiger app tests...one month ago i was hopeless, now i'm blitzing it. in a month's time i expect to be hopeless again. learn the tricks, pass the tests and get on with flying! :ok:

[DeltaT]

The ones that looked perfect on paper were often the ones who got the worst assessment from our insider.
"Massive ego" was usually the cause of a rejection from a seemingly perfect candidate.

I often wondered if Airlines did that!! Seriously though, do airlines really think pilots tell the truth to some of the stupid questions they ask in interviews?
As for being perfect on paper, and massive ego, to which I admit to openly in both cases ha, isn't a massive ego a common trait amongst pilots?
Or is what you are describing really the difference between a pilot with experience and probably having done the job before compared to a pilot with lower experience or new? Which leads nicely into something I have read before about interviews which explains why airlines seem to take a lot of newbies, they promote what little they have compared to someone else with a lot to offer who rests on it all being explained in the CV.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

That whole solo in 15 hours thing is Bullsh*t, i don't care how long people take, it doesn't really matter, its how they grow as a pilot and the mentality.

I took longer than 15 hours simply because my Medical was delayed due to an argument with the CAA (i don't have asthma BTW) instead of saving my money and staying on the ground i kept working through the syllabus until my med cert was done, i'd pretty much completed most of it by the time the cert came through.
I had a very overcooked Solo.

I'd rather fly with a thorough ''nana'' with better cockpit checks than me.. than a sh*t hot 6 hours to solo top gun type.

[27/09]

We used to put one of our staff in a group of would be applicants at a place I used to work when we were having group selection. They would observe the candidates when they thought they weren't being "observed" by us. What it proved time and again was the way people acted when they were being themselves could be vastly different to how they acted when being in an interview scenario. The ones that looked perfect on paper were often the ones who got the worst assessment from our insider.

"Massive ego" was usually the cause of a rejection from a seemingly perfect candidate.

Actually one place that is very good for observing applicants is in a social setting, e.g. a few bevvies at the pub. In fact I understand Cathay have a cocktail evening which is part of the "interview process".

[Mach E Avelli]

Kiwi we could argue when one SHOULD solo, and because of the variables, come to no conclusion. If you are doing 30 minutes every month, it could take a very long time because of the lack of continuity. If you are learning at LAX International, ditto, because of the ATC situation, or if your instructor is useless, or if you are learning on some really tricky taildragger aircraft at a really challenging bush strip, maybe. But most flying schools use docile aircraft with training wheels on the front at benign airfields, if only for insurance purposes.
In a normal world, a normal person receiving proper and regular instruction should be able to meet approximate milestones that have been developed from past experience. I don't have statistical data, but would hazard a guess that 12 to 15 hours is about average time to solo for a westerner who has had normal exposure to the mechanical age. Perhaps a poll is in order, where pilots could qualify with things like time out for illness.....
One of the reasons airlines which run their own cadet programs do progress tests early is to weed out the slow learners whom they cannot afford to carry. Why should they have to make special cases when competition is so keen? Unfortunately for the psycho-babble exponents, the only definitive aptitude tests for pilots that I have seen to be reliable involve flying an aeroplane!

[Slasher]

To the OP - I agree with the majority of posts esp ones re psych tests merely
to keep Human Remains personnel in a job. Its nothing to do with "aptitude"
of course - its only a check to see if you're as crazy as the rest of us.

Simply bullsh!t your way through it and stay consistent - those new "online"
assessments (usually with bloody time limits) are harder because you can't
go back like we did in the old days to check what you answered in a similar
question.

Good luck!

[frigatebird]

What Anthill said;
It is extremely frustrating to try to apply, say, the fuel or duty time limit policy when you have to sit and explain to the other crew member what the policy actually means and allows.

Forget Aptitude, - what is needed is a 'Laziness and Arrogance Test' at interview stage..

When you have Co-pilots (and Captains who may have been in the small operation for a while) who once they are hired can't be bothered, and find that daily Flight and Duty program recording is too much, (among other requirements), saving the Company Operations money instead of scamming it for more than they think they can get away with, yet still expecting time off when they choose - would be a better test to reduce the interview numbers for a better overall operation in the long run..

[Horatio Leafblower]

Frigatebird,

Amen. :*

Personal favourite is pilots who can't be bothered to complete time sheets for 2 weeks but still expect to get paid each week... and when they don't get paid they expect the boss to call in the (part time) accounts payable person, at minimum 4 hours wages, to do their pay especially :mad:

[Mach E Avelli]

Simple fix to that problem is to link the completion of timesheets to the pay system. Incomplete = Delayed pay. Guarantees 100% compliance.