Oxford Advice Please!
Leadership tends to imply an hierarchical situation of leader/follower and this is not desirable in a cockpit.
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 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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Cumbria
Age: 35
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm willing to take advice from anybody, just not insults.
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
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A long way from home
Age: 44
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls:
Sounds like a lot of captains to me! (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.
I'm afraid ANW1988, that I am getting the impression that no-one can tell you anything because you already know it.
(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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
[...]those standard tests that cheap and unimaginative Human Resources departments like to inflict upon candidates[...]
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."
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.
If FTOs really are greedy morons as accused,
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.
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.
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
Adios
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!
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.
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!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: at the whim of people I've never met
Age: 46
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
AFAIK NetJets used the OAA/EPST software on their prospective hires back in 2007 (when they were still recruiting).
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
It really is as simple as all that.
WWW
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?
It really is as simple as all that.
WWW
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London & Oslo
Age: 54
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
