Well, I understand the tests have their sense when the airlines are serching for pilots, but the problem is some of them(test) are difficult to do, and hard to understand, specially talking about guys over 45 years old. Feels like they want to hire a super power pilot.

Airline HR people have managed to create a very lucrative cottage industry for themselves with this BS.
It used to be very rare to come across psychometric testing. The old interview with the Chief Pilot, maybe with someone from ‘personnel’ taking notes worked brilliantly for years.
But now we have fallen for the HR mantra, and significantly over complicated the whole recruitment process, whilst also adding in cost.
And it hasn’t achieved anything at all.
Most people who are successful at interview (and maybe a Sim Ride) turn out to be perfectly trainable pilots, are normal people, nice to fly with and get on with the job, and each other. Occasionally, d1kheads get through. It was always the case. BS psychometric tests don’t change this. They have no safety benefit and they do not reduce training risk.
Its just empire building by the old personnel dept.

No, of course not. Recruitment would be handled by the Flight Ops team - they will be involved anyway.
It’s a simple solution, as I mentioned previously. You sift the applicants based on any number of variables, for example total hours, jet hours, type rating held, similar type rating, etc etc. It’s pretty easy to set up.
Airlines do this all the time.

It is not impractical at all.
Anyway, how does a psychometric test help this? it doesn’t, and it offer no value.

I think that your comments about nepotism etc are unworthy.

These are all filtering devices. You can debate their relevance or accuracy until the cows come home. Supply and demand determines the application of filters to reduce numbers.

A similar but different example. Emirates would only take pilots with jet experience above 50 tonne MTOW. Next minute they were hiring turboprop pilots.

Supply and demand.

Some airlines in Australia currently use the mirror test. They place a mirror up to the applicants nose and mouth, if it fogs up, they have a job.

A.I. will probably nullify psychometric tests soon enough, if they're being done at home. Just ask it to play your Spotify list and do the test while you boil the kettle.

[QUOTE=Uplinker;11167972]Professional transport pilots are taught NOT to rush or do things quickly in emergencies; that was my point.
Time is taken to correctly and calmly identify a failed engine for example or feather the correct prop. Even a TCAS or GPWS escape manoeuvre or a go-around should not be rushed, just performed properly and calmly.

I recall the November 1979 CFIT crash of the Air New Zealand DC10 in white out conditions into the slopes of Mount Erebus in the Antarctic. Travelling at 260 knots, the DC10 hit with wings level and nose up 10 degrees. The CVR recorded the GPWS Pull Up aural warning followed by the captain calmly saying "Go Around Power Please" presumably to the Flight Engineer. The investigation showed the aircraft flew into the 13 degree up sloping side of the mountain and hit the snow covered terrain at a 10 degree body angle.

Being wise after the event, it could be said that if the pilot had reacted immediately by firewalling the engines himself while aggresively pitching up to 15-20 degrees body angle, he may have likely out climbed the slope. . Instead he sounded quite calm but slow to react, even though the F/E was calling out the steadily decreasing radio altimeter height. A GPWS Pull up call in IMC needs instant and aggressive reflexes. There is no time for niceties as every second may count. Go-arounds or TCAS have a different type of urgency.

Further to the subject of airline aptitude testing versus an interview with the chief pilot. Back around 1956 I was a 24 year old RAAF pilot with 1500 hours including 800 hours command on four engined Lincoln bombers. Applied for a job with Ansett and was interviewed by the then chief pilot. He was quite blunt and said at age 24 I was a bit too old to join Ansett and that they preferred hiring pilots from GA who had done the hard yards rather than from a military background where pilots got their flying training free. . Interestingly at the time TAA were hiring ex military trained pilots as well as GA types

Back in 2000 when I went through QF testing, it was most useful to share the same surname as a current QF Captain, or the head of pilot recruitment (hi Barry).

Imagine my delight, after I got in, to meet the head of pilot recruitment’s son (767 FO), daughter (737 FO), & wife (some random HR job in Flt. Ops).

When I went to the USA for a regional, it was a quick HR phone call-we talked about my experience and qualifications, a few scenario-based questions, and off I went. The training was second to none. Scenario-based training, “train as you fly, fly as you train” was the motto. They build the aircraft, they have more challenging traffic, weather and terrain.
In Australia we dont build the aircraft, HR are very biased, they psychoanalyse every detail in your CV, they can discriminate, and are often disrespectful- tall poppy driven. Whereas in the USA, they trust their training process, they are data-driven and opportunistic. In Australia, they undermine their own training departments with these ridiculous assessments.

I am now a Captain and Line Check Airman in the USA — go figure.

Waste of time
 

It’s a total waste of time. Maybe HR get off on it!
Have a friend who did time at Ansett, Check Capt at Virgin now. Never had any issues in the job, well respected. Applied to Qantas years ago and didn’t pass the aptitude test!!

😂😂😂

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...eedbrake-armed

These pilots would have passed every psychometric test the BS compass test that VA used, HR interview, and simulator check and still ended up in a high-workload situation where standard items were missed. Why? Because psychometric testing doesn’t measure the things that actually matter on a real flight deck.
Psychometric tests can’t predict:

• How you’ll respond to an unexpected ATC instruction
• How you manage time-critical tasks under real stress
• How you prioritise SOPs when the workload spikes
• Whether you’ll challenge a the crew member or back each other up
• Whether fatigue, pressure, or operational circumstances will change your behavior on the day

What actually protects the operation is:

• Strong SOPs
• Good leadership and training
• Active CRM
• Threat and error management
• A positive, robust blame free safety culture

Pilots are human beings, not personality profiles and this ozstraunaght BS culture. If you can fly, if you're trained and current, and if you bring the right humble attitude, that matters far more than any BS pre-employment test.

You've got a full 5 seconds to respond to an initial RA by design. No need to rush.

Perhaps if Centaurus had said “TCAS and go arounds do not require a split second response like EGPWS does” you would have got the point he was attempting to make?
Wind shear and stall warning are other examples where there is no time to have a meeting to discuss actions required.

At a regional, at a time they were begging for anyone with a pulse? Sure. If you apply for any of the US legacy carriers, you will find plenty of psychometric testing. Hell, one of them even has a full psychologist interview as part of their assessment day.

There's 200 applicants all trained and current, and on paper bring the right attitude. How do you whittle this down if you only have 20 spots, and the resources to interview 100?

I get your point.. here is my take.

When I applied for QLink, I was told I didn’t pass the psychometric testing. No feedback, no explanation just “try again in 12 months. I accepted it and moved on.

A few months later I applied for another Qantas Group airline, and they told me:

“You don’t need to redo the psychometric. Your previous one is still valid and current.”

So let’s break that down: According to their system,I wasn’t smart enough for the Dash 8, but the exact same psychometric result was good enough to be accepted at another Qantas Group airline flying A320 even though I’d been told I “failed” it by qlink.

To make it even more confusing, a guy from my workplace, great bloke, but he had bare minimum hours, passed the same psychometric that I supposedly wasn’t suited for. I had ten times his experience, airline jet time, instructor experience, and still got filtered out.

So clearly the test isn’t measuring cognitive ability, safety, judgement, or flying potential. It’s simply acting as an HR-driven filter. Who knows mate. And once you see the inconsistencies, it’s hard not to notice the pattern: they keep the people they want, and remove the ones they don’t. Sometimes it’s as superficial as your background, your name, or whether you fit their preferred mould of diversity they can use this test as an excuse. who knows..

My view point is psychometric testing isn’t a measure of who will perform better on the flight deck. It’s just a tool used by HR to justify decisions that have nothing to do with actual airmanship or operational capability.

And just to add some perspective from the US side because the “anyone with a pulse” comment gets thrown around way too casually. A friend of mine was hired at United straight from Spirit. No psychometric testing, no personality assessments, no psychologist sitting in the room. It was literally a simple panel interview, they gave her a tour of the United museum, and even told her in advance what kind of questions would come up. She’s Australian with a green card and got the job based on her experience and who she was as a pilot nothing more complicated than that.

Compare that with Delta, which actually does include psychometric testing and a psychologist on the interview panel, but even there the main deciding factor isn’t how you score on those tests. It’s your PRIA, your background, your training history, your checkride performance, and your failure rate. In the US, your real record matters far more than how you perform on a personality questionnaire.

Yes, during the shortage the “pulse” era opened doors at the regionals, but you still had to pass the federal background checks, clear PRIA, survive the training program, and perform to the company standard. Nothing about that was a free ride.

Australia somehow takes the same idea, hiring pilots and adds layers of HR filtering, psychometrics, abstract scoring, and personality algorithms, then claims it’s all about safety. Meanwhile, the US relies on training departments, data, and your actual flying history. They assess you as a pilot, not as a psychological profile.

So no it’s not “anyone with a pulse” in the US. It’s people with a solid background, a clean record, demonstrated competence, and the ability to get through training. In many ways, that seems far more practical than filtering out experienced pilots based on an algorithm that can’t even decide whether I’m fit for a turboprop but perfectly fine for a jet.

There's 200 applicants all trained and current, and on paper bring the right attitude. How do you whittle this down if you only have 20 spots, and the resources to interview 100?[/QUOTE]

Exactly the point I’ve been saying for many years: HR in Australia a fn lazy! they rely on there psychometric testing because they’re lazy, they don’t want to do any real work, and they love having something to justify their own jobs. Instead of actually assessing quality pilots, engaging with candidates, or looking at real training and performance history, they hide behind these generic tests as an easy way to thin the pile. It’s never been about selecting the best or safest pilots it’s just the quickest shortcut for HR to avoid doing the hard yards while pretending it’s all part of some sophisticated process. In the US they get hundreds of applicants too, but they are not lazy..they actually do real hands on HR work.

Many years ago, a few of us did a psychometric test of the "draw your ideal house" or "draw your pet or any animal" variety.

After discussing our various efforts post test, the conclusion was they were examining us to ensure we were actually mad enough to work for them.

Minor correction: United applicants do undergo psychometric assessment - formally known as the ‘Leadership Inventory Assessment’, a.k.a the hogan. Until recently you had to pass that to get invited to Denver for the in-person; currently everyone who gets selected for a hogan goes to Denver, but the pass rate at the interview is correspondingly lower. The interview comprises an HR portion & a tech portion. Delta is HR only & no tech interview.