Why don't schools 'screen' self sponsored cadets?

[Fly_777]

In terms of people applying for the long courses at UK Flying Colleges, I really think that they must 'raise the standard' of entry for their self sponsored, self selected cadets.

OK, business is business, but I think it is totally irresponsible of the flying scools in the way in which they allow 'applicants' onto their courses with open arms, without any knowledge of a candidates academic ability, personality make-up, and all other factors that would go towards assessing whether someone will go on to pass the course, and more importantly, become a competent commercial pilot.

I believe that ALL ab-inito cadets must under go the same screening as sponsored cadets before being allowed on a course. Even if these results just provide an honest assessment for the candidates aptitude for the course so that he/she can form his own judegment as to whether he/she should go ahead, at least this would be better than some marketing 'pleb' saying, 'sure, give me £60K and everything will be just fine!'

All too often I have seen people joining colleges, and after paying vast sums, realise the course isnt as easy as marketing make it out to be! A few weeks later they are applying for refunds, only to get back £16K out of the £60K!

On a CAA course, a struggling student could get through his exams 'learning' all the practice papers. Under JAR, this just isnt possible. Many regard the training course as 'the' test. In my opinion, a candidate should have been tested before allowed on the course, so that the course and exams are nothing more than a formality.

I dont think just raising the academic entry requirements (e.g. to degree level) would be fair. Many ab-initios choose to complete a flying course instead of uni. I also know a couple of highly successful captains who never had a qualification to their name before starting their flying course.

I recently saw an advert from one UK flying school for assessment days, where aptitude tests and interviews, etc. can be conducted for self sponsored cadets (for around £250).

Anyone have any thoughs on all this?

[Speedbird 2946]

Fly_777,

I appreciate your points and agree with you, although I seem to have been under the incorrect impression that BAe at Jerez tested their candidates before allowing them to commence the course.

I wouldn't regard such a scheme as 'screening' though as often people get better at aptitude tests and I have seen people fail one set of aptitude tests only to pass another set with flying colours. I have read on these pages that after bmi british midland testing at Oxford, rejected candidates received one of two letters: saying that they had been unsuccessful but either did, or did not, have the aptitude required to self sponsor.

It may well benefit some candidates to have, say, the GAPAN tests included as a prerequisite to commencement of a course, but would wannabes be willing to fork out yet more money to do this?

Perhaps an idea would be for the schools who run airline aptitude tests to just extend the process by a few days, and at nominal cost, allow other potential self-sponsored wannabes to sit the same battery of tests.

Any self-sponsors out there have any thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic... II personally feel that I would sit some tests before shelling out my hard earned money on a course, but what do others think?

And as a random thought that comes to mind, where does BAe test its potential Airtours crews? It must be somewhere in Britain.. no?!

Safe flying,

SB :)

[JB007]

I do have to agree..
My personal view is not so much as been able to cope with what the course throws at you, but are you "Airline Material" i.e after you've spent your £30,000, can you get a job!

It wouldn't take much for schools to assess this from potential incoming students. Give them a somewhat near airline interview before they take their money.

007

------------------
Hear All...See All...Say Now't.

[email protected]
(I'm away for a while!)

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Having been through the mill of flying training, the only screening done is to see if you can pay the fees. After all they are running a business to make money (first), and train pilots(second).

[Undercarraige]

I have to say guys that I agree with everything that has been said so far in relation to this topic. It is only to often that you hear of individuals leaving courses because of their difficulty. In reality this happens to a large number of people who look at the future rewards of this excellent career rather than facing the responsiblity of engaging on a very tough regime of study and self determination on a very demanding course.

[Fly_777]

Screening / testing is for the benefit of applicants and the airlines.

Many self sponsored cadets, starting their career with smaller operators, will only have an interview for their selection.
I have witnessed two pilots lose their jobs in my short time in aviation purely because they could not handle the pressure of the cockpit, and may therefore react badly in an emergency (anxious introverts rather than stable extrovets perhaps!). Some kind of selection / screening process right from day one would have saved the pilots, and the airline, a whole lot of time and money - and heartache.

[Going Around & Around]

Agree with most of the sentiments but to dissuade everyone who failed the tests which, although geared towards finding out aptitude for pilot training, really in my opinion do not do a very good job, would be a hell of a waste!
Let's face it, anyone with reasonable mathematics ability, general common sense and (most importantly) practice can pass the aptitude tests most airlines put you through when going for sponsorship or jobs. The micropat are slightly different, I think, but the vast majority of self-sponsored pilots have been knocked back by the airlines and their tests at least once yet gone on to make good pilots. I, along with virtually every other person on my course thought bugger their selection tests and went through the ab-initio anyway with no great drama. I can only speak for what I have personally seen, but of the people I saw struggling, most just didn't put the graft in, though I grant that unfortunately there will always be people that do work bloody hard and still don't get there through no fault of their own. Would tests pick these people out? I doubt it.
As for testing to see if you will be able to get a job when you leave...again a nice idea, but does it really happen on ability? IMHO being "airline material" is quite a small part of actually getting a job post training. Can you gauge luck and determination in classroom tests?
It would have taken a lot of testing to convince me not to give my ambitions a good go and spend my life saying "what if"...

[gimpboy]

Fly_777

I have to disagree with your views.

Most tests should be taken with a pinch of salt and I think that if a student is really determined to fly and has a passion for it - he/she will pass the course.

I have a friend who was told by the RAF he had no flying ability whatsoever. He resat the tests a year later only to pass! much to the confusion of the RAF board. He then went onto become a very good airline pilot - what does that tell you?? My view is that is tells you that these tests are C*ap!

Testing for sponsorship is a filter - to get rid of the vast numbers of people. Some people have what a desk jockey has decided pilots need and some don't - it has no bearing on their ability to fly.

I agree that some people are just not upto the job - that is almost expected every now and again but these people would probably be caught out in the training.

Sounds to me like you don't like the fact that guys are getting the same jobs as people who have sat these tests. Are you sponsored by any chance?

[Busta Level]

Have to say that I don't agree with any of the above comments (except for the previous two which appeared as I wrote!!!). The flying schools are running a business and, at the end of the day, if someone has the money but not the sense then that is the customers probem (as harsh as it may sound). Would you also expect a used car dealer to check your driving skills before he sells you a car (just in case you end up driving it off the forecourt and into a bus stop)? I don't think so.

Aptitude tests are notoriously unreliable indicators of how good a pilot someone will make, and do not necessarily provide any indication of ones intelligence level as pertains to aviation (they were, after all, designed for 'generic' graduate recruitment schemes). Look at how many people fail the various aptitude tests out there - does that make 98% of the applicants daft? No. They are a tool to reduce the vast numbers of applicants to more manageable levels. In any case, look at how many of the supposed 'chosen few' get chucked off their sponsored courses due to lack of aptitude/interest (more than you would imagine)!

At the end of the day, the JAR exams (ground and flying)are there for a good reason - to test your ability as applies to aviation. If you achieve passes and get the coveted 'blue book' then you should feel rightly proud of it. If you don't, then it was for good reason, and the system has worked. Applying ad-hoc tests to make people like 777 feel 'safe' simply would not work, and may mean that many people who would ultimately make good pilots are put off an excellent career for life!

Give everybody a chance at least eh guys?

Cheers

Busta

[This message has been edited by Busta Level (edited 11 March 2001).]

[Miss Bigglesworth]

Agreed. Anyone can pass the aptitude tests with a reasonable amount of practice and an expectation of what they entail.

However, I do agree that there should be some kind of screening for the schools, after all, money can buy you almost anything.

How about more focus on interviewing? I would have thought attitude and personality holds far more importance than having a good day on an aptitude test.

[gimpboy]

Well said Busta Level!

[VFE]

Hi folks,
As I am in the "school interviewing" stage at this moment, I too have strong feelings on this.
No school I have visited, with true intentions of training with them, has tested me in any way. This is wrong. I am not a rich person (whatever is classed as rich these days) who can fork out the dosh for an integrated course "just like that"! I feel a duty to my wallet (and my financial sanity!) to make sure I have what it takes before I do so.

Steps need to be taken by the authorities but unfortunately these steps have to be taken by ourselves and so I am sitting the GAPAN tests next week, at a small cut of what I am looking at paying for a commercial pilots licence, which I hope is going to go some way in helping my cerebral regions to realise this is what I can(?) do. I feel this is wrong.*

Test potential applicants schools please, you will get alot more business (and respect) out of prospective students if you do.

Regards, VFE.

*Not the cost, but the fact I feel this is wrong for a prospective professional. After all, what is it, 60% of pilots are self sponsorers? Hmmm.



[This message has been edited by VFE (edited 12 March 2001).]

[gimpboy]

VFE

ha ha - you should listen to yourself!

If you want to know if you have what it takes - whatever that is - try a flying or gliding lesson. It will teach you more than some stupid test.

But if you are this unsure then maybe you should look at another career.

[Busta Level]

VFE,

What tests do you suggest would prove that you are capable of completing the course?

Would you be willing to pay for these tests?

If you passed the test and then failed later in the course would you look to sue the school?

What if you failed all the tests you took at every school - would you give up on your desire to be a pilot?

If the answer to the last question is yes, then I suggest that you give up now. Believe me - you will face a great deal more challenges during the training (and afterwards) than you can believe. If you would be dissuaded by the results of a meaningless test, then I am afraid that you will just not make it anyway.

If the answer is no, then why do the test in the first place?!

If you are looking for some sort of guarantee that you will pass the course then you will be equally disappointed. It is all too easy to rely on the opinions of others. If you BELIEVE that you can do it, then go ahead. It is a huge gamble, but it can be successful. There is no one but yourself who can make it a success - and looking for guarantees will get you nowhere. take responsibility for your actions, don't rely on others and you will go far!

Cheers.

Busta

[This message has been edited by Busta Level (edited 11 March 2001).]

[Busta Level]

gimpboy - we cross posts again!

Touche!

busta

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

BAE Systems College in Jerez now test all applicants and provide full feedback on results whether they accept you for training or not. These tests are specifically validated against pilots in E.U. air forces and are a very good indicator of flying aptitude.

Psychometric and Aptitude Testing have strong correlations to success in flying training. Thats why organisations spend so much on them year in year out (think BA and RAF).

Its a hell of a lot better than 2 people on the other side of a desk deciding whether thye like you or not and then looking at what GCSE's you got in school...

If you see the heartache of people failing these courses you would not wish it on your worst enemy. Anything that minimises this is a good thing.

Good luck and remember - consistent hard work and dedication can overcome nearly any deficit in aptitude.

WWW

[robione]

VFE,SCENARIO.On the day of your tests u get out of bed the dog bites u,u cant find your wallet,u have a disagreement with your missus about the mess u left in the bathroom,the car gives u trouble starting,u get snarled up in traffic,your late for your tests,your having a bad day and you fail them.So now you are going to walk away completely from the flying idea and stick with the day job.Just like that.If that was me ide be back till i passed mate.Take no prisoners the decision is made,and thats it.Thats my attitude and not a lot will change my decision,least of all test results on a day i knew was a lousy one.If u really feel u must put yourself through this and it dosn,t go to plan what are u going to do?live the rest of your life thinking about your dream?I dont need the results of some test to tell me i cant cut the mustard,detirmination has showed me i can,
MARTIN LUTHER KING
I have a dream.
If u really want to do it u will,regardless of test results.If the school i went to tested me for entry and i failed,ide just sit it again till i did pass its as simple as that.

[threadbare]

The reason that training schools do not offer a decent screening process is as busta says because somebody is about to pay them a hefty sum of money for their training, it is a business and they are not going to turn them away.

In my opinion the screening you are put through can be fairly inaccurate but is still better than nothing. It will often show up the people who just can't do it as well as unfortunately many who can. One person who sat a general GCSE maths test ended up with a big fat zero, is this somebody who would be able to think on their feet in the air by adjusting the headings and times in the hold or calculating rates of descent based on actual conditions? Probably not.

However as is pointed out in previous posts, it depends upon how much you want it, more than the ability you have. Most people can probably do it but there will always be the odd person who just can't.

[Busta Level]

WWW,

OK. Fair points made. However, just a couple of questions.

How many people have BAE actually turned away due to the results of the tests? I would suggest that it is not that many (business models don't work well with turning away customers with ready cash)! Although business is good at the moment, I'm sure that the tests would suddenly become much less 'important' if things got tough? (or am I just being cynical?!)

<<Psychometric and Aptitude Testing have strong correlations to success in flying training. Thats why organisations spend so much on them year in year out (think BA and RAF).>>

Yes - but think how many people fail in both BA and the RAF even AFTER the aptitude tests. I'm not sure that there has been any comparative study to show that the aptitude tests result in a lower percentage of failures than using any other pseudo-random selection procedure. After all - the aptitude tests in both cases are simply a means of reducing the huge numbers involved. The real decisions are made later by <<2 people on the other side of a desk deciding whether they like you or not and then looking at what GCSE's you got in school>> are they not?

I agree that there can be a great deal of heartache involved in 'dropping off' a course, but it is a risk we all take. What I am trying to get across is that too many people are looking for a 'blame' culture here. They want someone to give them absolute assurances of success. As you and I both know, these assurances will often cause more trouble than good...

If we all worried about taking the plunge to go training we'd have no aircraft in the skies today (except for BA and the RAF of course :) )

Cheers!

Busta

[This message has been edited by Busta Level (edited 11 March 2001).]

[MAVERICK 1]

RE: Busta Level and Gimpboy.

You are so right keep up the side boys... :)

RE:Fly_777

Get a life................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no idea what your background is or why
you appear to be so pro-selection testing, but it is exactly what its name means "SELECTION". It is used for companies trying to get numbers down.

If you get a person turn up with the money why can't he do it?

It is not a difficult course providing you are prepared to put the work in. If you are not you fail - that is a worthwhile selection!

I happened to be at a certain famous flying school where BA turned up to appolgise to the Self-sponsored cadets because their own apptitude tests were a load of rubbish and they had recruited a lot of the wrong people and went on to recruit a load self-sponsored cadets!!!

When you finish the course you have to get a job and go all through selection again.

My point is that if you have problems with selection tests you are illiminatted from further proceedings.

HOWEVER that does not mean you wont be a natural pilot... and you won't be a lot better than people who pass graduate recruitment tests.

Graduate recruitment tests that BA and BMI use are standard tests whether you are going to be a pilot or pen-pusher.

Everyone that gets into an airline job is screened at some point why are so are you so bl**dy dtermined to stop peoples dreams early on?

Are you scared they might be better than you???



------------------
That's right, I am dangerous!!!

[chewinggum]

I think that prospective students should be subject to some sort of aptitide tests.It's a shame when someone starts and drops out because the school were in too much of a hurry to take there money.Aviation after all is just like doing any other academic course, you need to have some sort of of previous qualifications.
In the end it also depends on how much money you have and how many times you want to fail exams. You may scrape through the exams after numerous attempts but when it comes to the interviews,type rating etc.. there are no 2,3rd or 4th attempts..and besides to you want somebody who didn't even get an o grade flying u about?

[This message has been edited by chewinggum (edited 11 March 2001).]

[Going Around & Around]

Right on, Maverick...keep preaching the good word! I sense a rebellion against the harbingers of doom and gloom that roam Wannabes destroying hopes and dreams!

Can I first of all say I feel really sorry for these poor so&sos so worried whether or not they will cut the mustard that they are utterly convinced as to the value of these selection tests. It is a hell of a lot of money which I agree should not be trifled with, but how many of you have been told you won't be able to do things in the past only to do them anyway! I have, quite a few times!! That makes me either determined or stubborn. Depends on whether I'm filling in an application form or not!

Chewinggum, I'm sure that along with everyone else, you will be able to remember the kids at school who were really smart. Top of the class (straight "A-star" students for you youngsters) but couldn't catch a cold let alone a ball, despite an unerring ability to calculate it's trajectory, place and time of arrival using complex algebra by the age of 6! They'd probably get the highest scores in all of these tests (except micropat) but I'd still rather have a bloke that had failed the odd aptitude test but was a natural pilot flying me around when the brown stuff really started to hit the fan!

So those of you that do have some hand-eye coordination, are willing to put in a hell of a lot of hard work and are determined to get there, go for it! Chances are you will make it!!!

[VFE]

Going Around & Around
I do hope that I don't come into your "cat" of "harbingers of doom and gloom that roam Wannabes destroying hopes and dreams".
Yikes - not me guv!

I would really love to know how many of these thread writers are forking out their cash "on loan"? I am. Rich parents then? We don't all have 'em!
Stop being so brave (if you fit that bill) on an anonymous forum people!
I am really dedicated to becoming a pilot, just sensible. Sorry.

Who produced that song about sensibility?

Regards, VFE.

This post is dedicated to a pal of mine who died yesterday. Gutted.
Apologies for sounding sharp.

[F3]

I beleive the person at the end of the course might well be fundamentally changed from that which walked in the door 18 months earlier, such are the qualities/capabilities revealed(to the student) during flying training...as with some other vocations.

I agree with the idea of the test to provide the prospective pilot with a possible indication of the degree of effort that may be required, so he/she is able to make extra provision financially.

I don't think one should be refused entry to the FTO on the basis of the test result, they may well change to such an extent later, that they fly(!) through it!

[Going Around & Around]

VFE,

I'd put you in the poor so&sos bracket, not the former which was a bit of general ranting! I agree totally about being sensible, but I personally think it's more about quantity (ie hard work) than rocket science.
Sorry to hear about your mate.

As I said above, I can only go on what I saw while training and the vast majority of self sponsored students that were at OATS around the same time as me, got through without too many slip ups - The odd flying test here or the occasional exam failed by a quesion or two. These were "invariably well recovered" to quote my own final report, but the biggest problem for all of us was getting even an interview after leaving - that was personally the hardest and the most souldestroying year of my life (That's temping for you!).

For the record, I'm certainly not being brave or flippantly telling people "Yeah, Sod it! Blow the money!" (sorry if it came over as such), just trying to present the "half full" side of the argument despite it going against my naturally cynical instincts!

[Busta Level]

VFE,

Don't assume that everybody else has it easier than you. The vast majority of self sponsored people do not have rich parents. They have worked bloody hard to save the money, or borrowed the money (or both) to achieve their dream, whether it ends in success or not. Making comments like that takes a lot away from everybody who has paid for their own training.

As far as 'hiding' behind anonimity, I'm quite happy to reveal my 'true' identity and story (I don't post here that much anyway!). My name is John, and I did my ATPL training at OATS in 1997, having given up a stable career. I self sponsored through savings from 6 years of teaching and borrowed the rest from banks/credit card companies etc!! I'm still paying my dues all these years later. I was 29 when I started the training, and I was lucky enough to 'only' face 4 months out of work before landing my first job - which I am still in. I won't name names, but if you look at my other posts throughout the years, it is obvious who I work for. I'm very happily flying A320/321's, and am just about to convert on to the A330. I really do enjoy my job (although every job has its occassional 'off' day)! However, it took a great deal of hard graft and committment to get to this point. I faced a lot of criticism for doing what I did, but at the end of the day, it was MY decision. If I had been less lucky it would still have been the right decision - at least I would have given it a go. If I'd sat back and spent years worrying about whether to do it or not I'd still be unhappy. Sometimes you can be too sensible?!

How about your story then?

Sorry to hear about your friend.

Busta

[This message has been edited by Busta Level (edited 12 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Busta Level (edited 12 March 2001).]

[VFE]

Thanks for the kind words folks, it is really appreciated.

You know, I feel just the same as you too but I cannot help feeling a little dubious about FTOs taking my money without even so much as a question. Still, as someone pointed out, the tests are to come during and afterwards so maybe then's the time to get busy!

Sorry for sounding like an old fart (I really do feel the same as you!) and sorry for coming across as a doom-merchant - it's just the feeling that my bank manager installed into me!

Let us all go for it and reap the rewards - as my mate said "what are you worried about?" Say's it all really doesn't it....

Thanks again, VFE.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

There are literally thousands of studies out there that validate aptitude selection tests - without them being proven valid they would have no commercial value.

Aptitude and Psychometric selection testing has been in the industry for decades, it is widespread and it will be here in a hundred years time. You'd better get used to it.

Instead of berating it why don't you propse a fairer/better technique?

Try checking out my thread in the Wannabes Archive where I argue the case and explore this issues in Pilot Selection tools...

Its really not Voodoo you know - just solid statistical fact.

Cheers

WWW

[Fly_777]

Thanks for the comments, Maverick. For your info;

Im in training right now on a JAR ATPL integrated course. Im totally self financed (no rich parents). I saved up for my PPL from the age of twelve, and have worked in aviation ever since leaving school. I didn't apply for sponsorship because the airline im going to fly for don't operate such a scheme. And I do have a life!

I'm sorry, but I really think its time the flying schools sorted themselves out, especially when it comes to offering places on Integrated courses.

There will always be some who struggle with the course (including sponsored cadets) but will pull through. Others, despite their best efforts - will not get through. And there is a minority who should never have started the course.

I dont want to see (and cant ever see!) flying schools turning people away. But, they MUST start assessing candidates before they are allowed to sign up, giving their honest opinion of his/her suitability as an airline pilot. The candidate, based on these assessments, can then make his/her OWN decision as to whether he should go ahead, OR maybe undertake some other kind of study course first (to improve maths, mechanics, study technique, etc.) before starting the course.

Dont get me wrong - im all for people making their dreams a reality. But flying schools must be honest about what the course demands and someones suitability.

Someone said the course is 'the screening process'. I think this is wrong. If you have been allowed to join a course, someone somewhere has said you have the ability to pass the course and become a competent pilot. In which case, the course, exams and tests should just be a formality.

We are training for a profression are we not?

[MAVERICK 1]

FLY_777

You have a valid point....

HOWEVER....

The people you are talking about wake up one morning and decide that they want to be an airline pilot and are not totally serious about the whole thing.
They have no idea whether they might be any good in which case an aptitude might help but it should be optional.

99% of the people that go for flying know what it is all about and the 55,000 pounds is enough of a selection proceedure!!!

:)


------------------
That's right, I am dangerous!!!

[This message has been edited by MAVERICK 1 (edited 12 March 2001).]

[Blindside]

Just a couple of things about pyschometric tests:

BM Sponsorship scheme: 450 applicants x £75.00 sure does go a long way towards paying for the selection process. 8 bits of paper and a pencil don't cost that much do they??

A training school that selects its applicants should be able to boast better average examination success. A useful tool when pitching for airline business.

Who's the cynic???

cheers

[Going Around & Around]

Everything in aviation has gold plate somewhere in it, unfortunately, to make prices so high. You are right though, Blindside, it probably costs £75 per session not per assessee! Nice little earner!

However, commercial flight training is already quite a niche market and for any FTO to cream off the top small percentage of that market making the clientbase yet smaller would surely be commercially risky irrespective of the higher pass rates. Additionally, (cynicism kicking in again), the schools make a lot more money from those that don't pass everything first time by way of extra hours, accomodation extras from courses overrunning etc etc etc!

Fly777, I agree that schools should be honest about how much hard work is involved. When people ask you how long it took to train from nothing to potential airline pilot, they are genuinely surprised at how quick it is, but I wonder if most people who start the course know that it's at least the same amount of work as a degree (well a 2:2 in Aeroengineering anyway) but all in the space of just over one year and not 3 or 4!

Reading all the other comments above, I'm willing to accept that testing does have it's uses, but as WWW says, the issue is surely the type of tests, not really the tests themselves. Chuck them in a sim for a couple of hours, see if they can learn and improve. Then send them a folder and set an exam on it a week later along with a basic maths test. That's surely more realistic of the course and abilities required than these rather generic aptitude tests that you would get if applying for a trainee accountancy job! It might also make it easier for people to accept being told that they won't make it if they are actually assessed on something that is obviously related to flying and thereby preventing those few that "should never have start the course" (777) from wasting thier money!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

OK lets sort some gold dust from some balderdash here.

Sim's are too expensive and prior experience to variable to allow them to be used for primary ab inito pilto selection. End of story.

Generic aptitude tests are largey rubbish when applied to pilot selection. Only cheap shot organsisations use such techniques. I would definitely include CABAIR in this category - hell they told me that I was a high training risk and 12 months later I was training airline cadets! They used re-hashed GCSE maths papers for their tests and got cadets to mark them for free on Weekends. Muppets.

Students who fail tests, flights and exams are a complete pain in the cackside to schools and in no way are they seen as being more profitable. All they end up doing is tying up valuable instructor resources as they require more briefing and re-testing ( every school is short of examiners) and screw up the whole timetable. Believe me I KNOW this. There is nothing worse than having 2 students and one is steadily pulling away from another - you end up giving the same brief twice instead of once as your students are no longer at the same phase. There are huge coomplications and from a financial standpoint schools much prefer all students to progress at the same pace and without failure.

Marketing DOES come into it. If you select the best candidates you'll have the best graduates which in turn will get you the best reputation and you then have an upwardly spiralling circle - to EVERYONES benefit.

I know for a fact that BAE losses money on every test that they let people take. The shortfall is made up from tagging an extra 60 quid or so on every successful applicants course fees. More than fair given the benfit of being able to say you were selected for training at a college with a massive reputation...

All faile applicants get full feedback reports from which they can concentrate on weak areas for next time. Thats worth its weight in Gold.

It is ironic and sad that people are tempted to have a go at flying schools for introducing candidate funded assessment testing. By doing so - in a proper meaningful sense unlike say CABAIR - they are being responsible and turning away people whos ambition sadly outstrips their ability. These people so exist, I have trained them and I do know how miserable they find the course and hoe much debt and family strife they sink into as they fail.

Airlines will continue to use psychometric and aptitude testing. I had to do it very recently - you'll have to do it often even if you are transferring from one airline to another albeit with thosands of jet hours under you belt.

Good Luck one and all,

WWW

[ROTATION]

MAVERICK, nothing personaL.....but:
Yes, aptitude tests used for selection such as the Morrisby profile and those provided by SHL and The Test Agency ARE used by companies to select pilots, pen-pushers and all sorts. That's the whole point - to give an idea of strength and weakness in areas such as spatial comprehension, creative ability, verbal reasoning, mathematical ability, etc etc. Strength in areas relevent to the job being applied for will then give an indication of their aptitude for that job. For pilot selection I guess they'd be looking for mathematical and spatial ability and good hand-eye coordination, amongst other things. They'd look for something totally different in a pen-pusher.
These test results do however have to be taken with a pinch of salt as statistically they are accurate therefore there will be exceptions to the rule. I think anyone who gives up on a career in flying because of the results of an aptitude test was never very commited in the first place. You're right - someone who failed an aptitude test could go on to be a natural pilot.
THEY ARE A GUIDE ONLY.
Instead, you seem to advocate using money as a selection criterion rather than possible ability!?!?!?!?!
"55,000 is enough of a selection criterion"
Well yes and if you have it you'll be able to pay someone to train you but I can see why certain schools use tests rather than taking anyone who's got the cash. As far as sponsorship goes - what better way to narrow down hundreads of people??

[Barney Stubble]

For a start let us accept that not everybody in this universe has the range of skills/knowledge/aptitude/personal qualities to become a commercial pilot. By that I mean pass a JAR ATPL, CPL, IR, get a job with an airline, pass a type rating, and get on with the job successfully. Some of the best PPL pilots probably would not make it, but that does not mean they do not enjoy flying and should not continue to do so, just not commercially.

Aptitude tests are a tried and tested way of gaining an idea if some of those requirements are present in an individual. I would suggest that interviews are just as important in assessing a persons potential for the job. I would not give up for failing one aptitude test, as they all differ considerably, the best option is to try them all - most come free with a sponsorship application ie. RAF, BA, Air Atlantic, the rest are relatively cheap BM, Cabair (on behalf of a range of airlines). Before parting with £000's surely anyone with any sense would give all these sponsorships a try, and in the bargain see if they have any aptitude in a variety of tests and possibly interviews. They may even get a sponsorship offer.

For those too old to apply for sponsorships, the over 28's really, it is just as important to have some idea of aptitude as they probably have career, commitments etc. to consider giving up. But again try more than one to get a decent picture.

You do not need to be Top Gun Academy material to be a commercial pilot, but if you fail a range of aptitide tests miserably, then in my opinion it would be a waste of your time and money to do the licences. There is no way the FTO's will tell you this (notable exception of BAE), as at the end of the day they want your cash.

The self sponsored guys or gals who succeed are generally well heralded by the FTO's or on forums like PPrune, it is the chaps who fall by the wayside, or fail to land a job that go unnoticed. I have seen some of these people, and generally it would have been obvious from the start that they would not make it. Determination and passion for flying go a long way, but some inherent aptitude and qualities are also required.

[touch&go]

I went to BAe Adelaide and we had to undertake 2 weeks of flight screening, which consisted of ground tests and 10 flight tests, which included 3 aerobatic flights before the college would take us.

Everyone who trained there had to undertake these tests and no matter how much money you had they wouldn't let you in if you weren't up to the grade.

I my view they were correct in doing this for two reasons:
1, Only fair not to take peoples money if they won't make it through.
2, It's not fair on the other members of the course, you can only go as fast as the slowest member, and there isn't the time allocated in ground school to hang around.

Anyway Adelaide have stopped doing JAR courses, but they had the right approach to selection.

[Fly_777]

This has become a very interesting and valuable topic to discuss. Despite anticipated mixed views, it seems most would favour the introduction of some kind of testing or screening, be it optional or mandatory.

I was not aware that BAE had introduced such a system. Perhaps other ab-initio schools in the UK should take note of this and act in parallel to BAE's professional approach and lead in this field.

Thanks to all who have added their view so far.