The true value of aptitude tests
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: lots of different places....
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The true value of aptitude tests
This is something I've wondered about for a little while now.
Since as far back as 1990, I have taken aptitude tests, GAPAN (RAF selection), Numeracy, verbal reasoning and personality tests (GEC Marconi, BAe and AWE), Computer based testing and numeracy, verbal reasoning and personality (British Airways selection), GAPAN (Pilot Assist requirement), Morrisby tests, CPI personality tests. For the most part I have the results sitting at home in a box somewhere (all the results are in the same ballpark and marginally improving each time). Now I think the testing is of value, not that it proves much beside highlighting a reduced risk in investment in me, but how transferable are these results?
I look at the sponsorship opportunities that have arisen (mostly historical) and they require that you pay and sit their tests, i.e all CABAIR sponsorships and MALGUS (irrelevent of what you think). Somewhere along the line I have actually sat the tests and have the results, so is it not possible to just hand over the results and wait and see what happens (maybe even straight through to interview stage)?
Any thoughts welcome.
Since as far back as 1990, I have taken aptitude tests, GAPAN (RAF selection), Numeracy, verbal reasoning and personality tests (GEC Marconi, BAe and AWE), Computer based testing and numeracy, verbal reasoning and personality (British Airways selection), GAPAN (Pilot Assist requirement), Morrisby tests, CPI personality tests. For the most part I have the results sitting at home in a box somewhere (all the results are in the same ballpark and marginally improving each time). Now I think the testing is of value, not that it proves much beside highlighting a reduced risk in investment in me, but how transferable are these results?
I look at the sponsorship opportunities that have arisen (mostly historical) and they require that you pay and sit their tests, i.e all CABAIR sponsorships and MALGUS (irrelevent of what you think). Somewhere along the line I have actually sat the tests and have the results, so is it not possible to just hand over the results and wait and see what happens (maybe even straight through to interview stage)?
Any thoughts welcome.
This would not work.
The scores you got when you were twenty would not be the same when you atr thirty. Even if you answered the same questions in the same way in the same time and with the same accuracy.
You see your "raw score" is fed through a statistical instrument best thought of as a filter. Filters include things like race, age, religion, sex, parentage etc.
Its why page one always ask those kind of questions.
Your raw score carried forward though the years would still need to be processed with your current status including age. This is what costs the money.
The tests are statisically proved to work. The validity for pilot aptitude testing is one of the most robust amongst vocational tests.
WWW
The scores you got when you were twenty would not be the same when you atr thirty. Even if you answered the same questions in the same way in the same time and with the same accuracy.
You see your "raw score" is fed through a statistical instrument best thought of as a filter. Filters include things like race, age, religion, sex, parentage etc.
Its why page one always ask those kind of questions.
Your raw score carried forward though the years would still need to be processed with your current status including age. This is what costs the money.
The tests are statisically proved to work. The validity for pilot aptitude testing is one of the most robust amongst vocational tests.
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that mentioning you've passed test X at interview or on you CV can't be a bad thing, It depends who you are applying to.
Though what WWW said, I'm sure is True (mostly)
As for the validerty of such tests and wither they are really worth a dam (they are and they arn't), you need to look at the history behind them;
Back in the 1930s and 40s if you could get to grips with a Tiger Moth and at least solo in 10 hour you were (and I do mean WERE, as in ARE) a good pilot if you did it in 7 you might expect to be given a Spitfire to play with by 150 hours TT. After that you might end up as a Hawker test pilot etc. No other apptitude test! (other than a test to make sure you know your 1/2XrhoXV2... etc)
By the Fifties (If you look at a Hunter or period airliner for instance) it looks like someones just chucked a load of instruments at the cockpit and mounted them where they landed! add to that the speeds that these a/c fly at and you see why the RAE and RAF et, al. started to develop all these tests.
Unfortunately this is when it all starts to go wrong and what we've ended up with (in many cases) are tests which produced jobs for the designer / testers (who knew little of practical application and more about theory, so said my late father who worked for the RAE / Vickers / BAE etc) and just another hoop to jump through for the subjects and if you can find one set of 'stats' to say they work, you can find another set from another university that say they don't. Also cockpit instruments, controls, calculus, etc that are involved, have changed so much for the better since the old days.
The point is that alot of the 'old salts' know this and this means that for some at lease these 'tests' are little more than a procedure, a thing to keep the beancounters / brass / investors happy. Thats why (so I'm told) some smaller airlines are more into how you do in a C170 tail dragger checkride while telling jokes as you go! as this has much the same effect only more practical! This is not so much just an my words but that of those who's oppinion I respect.
I suppose what I'm Trying to say also is DO do them if you have to
for a job, but DON'T pay to do more I think you'd be better off spending the money on a better interview suit and tie! or may be an hour in a full axis simulator.
Though what WWW said, I'm sure is True (mostly)
As for the validerty of such tests and wither they are really worth a dam (they are and they arn't), you need to look at the history behind them;
Back in the 1930s and 40s if you could get to grips with a Tiger Moth and at least solo in 10 hour you were (and I do mean WERE, as in ARE) a good pilot if you did it in 7 you might expect to be given a Spitfire to play with by 150 hours TT. After that you might end up as a Hawker test pilot etc. No other apptitude test! (other than a test to make sure you know your 1/2XrhoXV2... etc)
By the Fifties (If you look at a Hunter or period airliner for instance) it looks like someones just chucked a load of instruments at the cockpit and mounted them where they landed! add to that the speeds that these a/c fly at and you see why the RAE and RAF et, al. started to develop all these tests.
Unfortunately this is when it all starts to go wrong and what we've ended up with (in many cases) are tests which produced jobs for the designer / testers (who knew little of practical application and more about theory, so said my late father who worked for the RAE / Vickers / BAE etc) and just another hoop to jump through for the subjects and if you can find one set of 'stats' to say they work, you can find another set from another university that say they don't. Also cockpit instruments, controls, calculus, etc that are involved, have changed so much for the better since the old days.
The point is that alot of the 'old salts' know this and this means that for some at lease these 'tests' are little more than a procedure, a thing to keep the beancounters / brass / investors happy. Thats why (so I'm told) some smaller airlines are more into how you do in a C170 tail dragger checkride while telling jokes as you go! as this has much the same effect only more practical! This is not so much just an my words but that of those who's oppinion I respect.
I suppose what I'm Trying to say also is DO do them if you have to
for a job, but DON'T pay to do more I think you'd be better off spending the money on a better interview suit and tie! or may be an hour in a full axis simulator.
Last edited by David Balchin; 3rd Aug 2002 at 20:09.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which Airlines use aptitude tests for qualified candidates?
I understand that aptitude tests are proven to work at a selection stage for ab-initio pilots, be it for the airlines or for the forces. However which airlines or organisations test candidates with such tests when they are recruiting qualified pilots? (I hear Brittannia, Cathay, KLM and CTC do?)
I was under the (perhaps misinformed) impression that airlines and smaller operators looked more at one's CV content, hrs, types, experience etc. and regarded paperwork aptitude tests more as a rigmarole task. We can show them exam result, marks, attempts etc. if they want proof of our aptitude.
I have done aptitude tests in the past for the Forces and CTC and prepared accordingly with books and tests. As a fATPLer is it still worth keeping up to speed with these tests? Wiser people than myself recently suggested that I should be more concerned about making a good impression at interview and nailing sim rides? Alongside this should a fATPL still be polishing his/her number sequencing,playing with boxes patterns and pictures?....I guess it would give us something to do as we wait for the market to pick up!?
I was under the (perhaps misinformed) impression that airlines and smaller operators looked more at one's CV content, hrs, types, experience etc. and regarded paperwork aptitude tests more as a rigmarole task. We can show them exam result, marks, attempts etc. if they want proof of our aptitude.
I have done aptitude tests in the past for the Forces and CTC and prepared accordingly with books and tests. As a fATPLer is it still worth keeping up to speed with these tests? Wiser people than myself recently suggested that I should be more concerned about making a good impression at interview and nailing sim rides? Alongside this should a fATPL still be polishing his/her number sequencing,playing with boxes patterns and pictures?....I guess it would give us something to do as we wait for the market to pick up!?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not pilot aptitude testing, but ATCO aptitude testing... but I hope you find something useful in amongst all this lot.
Background: Eurocontrol's aptitude tests give you a points score from 0 to ????. The pass mark is 587, but nobody has ever been invited back to further selection with a score of less than 610.
There are 5 people in this narrative, with scores 920, 830, 784, 785, and 650(ish).
920 has been doing consistently well throughout the training. 830 is really flagging. 785 is doing very well indeed after a slow start. 784 started slow, carried on slow, slowed down and nearly got kicked off the course. However 784 has recently picked it up. 650(ish) is, by all accounts, doing rather well (and in the previous assessment was doing better than an 880(ish) person).
... make your own conclusions there. I have heard of validated controllers in Maastricht who failed NATS aptitude tests and vice versa.
I have repeatedly failed Cabair selection tests, but passed Oxford (BM) selection tests. On all check flights/ flight tests that I've taken I have never failed (although come close to it once, but the reason I didn't was because I kept a good attitude and didn't lose it like other 30-something hr PPL students might do, according to the examiner).
I personally believe that aptitude tests can give you an indication of how well someone will do in the training, and whether there is anything there to build on. A good instructor will inspire confidence in the trainee / student, which is very, very, very important.
Background: Eurocontrol's aptitude tests give you a points score from 0 to ????. The pass mark is 587, but nobody has ever been invited back to further selection with a score of less than 610.
There are 5 people in this narrative, with scores 920, 830, 784, 785, and 650(ish).
920 has been doing consistently well throughout the training. 830 is really flagging. 785 is doing very well indeed after a slow start. 784 started slow, carried on slow, slowed down and nearly got kicked off the course. However 784 has recently picked it up. 650(ish) is, by all accounts, doing rather well (and in the previous assessment was doing better than an 880(ish) person).
... make your own conclusions there. I have heard of validated controllers in Maastricht who failed NATS aptitude tests and vice versa.
I have repeatedly failed Cabair selection tests, but passed Oxford (BM) selection tests. On all check flights/ flight tests that I've taken I have never failed (although come close to it once, but the reason I didn't was because I kept a good attitude and didn't lose it like other 30-something hr PPL students might do, according to the examiner).
I personally believe that aptitude tests can give you an indication of how well someone will do in the training, and whether there is anything there to build on. A good instructor will inspire confidence in the trainee / student, which is very, very, very important.
