This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

WSOp Aptitude Test Vs RAF Officer Aircrew Aptitude Test

Just to throw something in here. I went to Cranwell and passed the OASC tests with a good score (didn't get in for other reasons). I'm going back to the year 2000 now.

I then thought I'd joint as Airmen so sat the AST. I failed to get what I needed for sooty by 1 mark. I have no idea what the score needed was, and therefore what I got. So I am living proof that you can pass OASC aptitude tests whilst failing the AST!

I was probably more to do with my mind not really being on the events in hand at the time...

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 21

WILSON92

OP

Just to throw something in here. I went to Cranwell and passed the OASC tests with a good score (didn't get in for other reasons). I'm going back to the year 2000 now.

I then thought I'd joint as Airmen so sat the AST. I failed to get what I needed for sooty by 1 mark. I have no idea what the score needed was, and therefore what I got. So I am living proof that you can pass OASC aptitude tests whilst failing the AST!

I was probably more to do with my mind not really being on the events in hand at the time...

It is strange how that can happen!!

Well I'm going to give WSO a go, and just see what happens, if I fail the Aptitude Tests for Aircrew at Cranwell, I shall take the hint and leave it at that!!

Reply 22

craglyboy

6

You can take the OASC aptitude tests as many times as you like to my knowledge you just have to wait a year between visits

Reply 23

Drewski

19

Not to detract from what reccemaster has said, but the tests in 2000 were very different to the tests being sat now.

Reply 24

Merlin55

craglyboy

You can take the OASC aptitude tests as many times as you like to my knowledge you just have to wait a year between visits

I'm pretty sure you can only take them twice, just like the AST.

Reply 25

Drewski

19

Merlin55

I'm pretty sure you can only take them twice, just like the AST.

No, used to be the case, but in the past couple of years its changed. Still have to wait a year between tries, but you can do it as many times as you want now.

Reply 26

reccemaster

Drewski...

I agree. The process back then was different. You didn't have to pass the AST filter before attending OASC. The tests you now take have been revamped, but they are still the same in essence. I can't see them being easier now can you?

I know that the Pilot selection battery now includes VR testing along with some others introduced in 2005 which previously used to be for Navs. Probably due to FJ aircraft now being one seated; Pilots now have to be Navs as well as Pilots.

You progress at OASC based on your pass mark at OASC. Your AST score doesn't count for anything once you get passed the filter score on your way there. The argument that a pass at AST means you don't fail at OASC would make sense if nearly 25% to 40% of applicants weren't still being binned at that stage. I doubt that the AST filter has much impact at all on people being selected at OASC or not.

I do think its more in keeping with what others have said. Its a filter to simply limit the number of people attending OASC and allow the process to be managable for such limited spaces in today's environment of cuts.

Working in Change Management, I find it quite interesting to think of the effectiveness of such processes; was its introduction a quality or quantity issue. If argued quality, then every applicant should take it. Ground, Aircrew and Officer applications.

If the argument for Officer applications is the education level already obtained and thus a demonstration of quality, then holding such a qualification should exempt you from taking the AST regardless of the trade applying for. In addition; anyone regardless of qualifications should be allowed to apply for any trade based on the AST score alone.

The AST after all is stated as being an assessment of your trainability. Has aircrew training therefore changed that much that it more in line with trade training than officer aircrew training? If not then what additional benefit other than a hurdle does the AST pre-test serve.

I'm sure I will stand corrected by those that have information that I do not. Is there any evidence that an AST score of 70E creates better and easier trained aircrew?

Reply 27

craglyboy

6

Again to my recolection you don't have to take the AST if attending OASC be that someone applying for officer role or SNCO.

Reply 28

ProStacker

11

If argued quality, then every applicant should take it.

Nope. Aptitudes for certain Branches are not required for all - therefore AST has nothing to do with quality - the tests are an indicator of required specific aptitudes, not quality or quantity.

Reply 29

reccemaster

ProStacker

Nope. Aptitudes for certain Branches are not required for all You've taken that a little out of context. I was making a statement of opinion, not fact with regards my views that AST should be taken by all applicant regardless of trade applied for.- therefore AST has nothing to do with quality - the tests are an indicator of required specific aptitudes, not quality or quantity. Sorry. Disagree with you. If your are selecting and de-selecting from a test, as your are with AST, then your aim is for quality. Innate aptitude or not an aptitude in terms of a selection testing regime is an act of 'quality' selection is it not?

I think I may have misled you. My main point was that the more I brake this down, the stronger the view that the AST in the case of WSOp, is the wrong tool of selection. My wider argument was that taking the AST prior to OASC is pointless due to the fact that once at OASC, your AST scores do not count for anything, and you are selected or de-selected from you scores at there tests which are specific to the aircrew aptitude required. This begs the question of what function does the AST perform in the selection of Aircrew. If not quality of the candidate is it quantity of applicant attending OASC.

However, if it was proven to actually increase the quality of the applicants, then as OASC also selects officers, my argument (proposal) was that officer applicants should also take the AST.

How many Pilot, WSO and WSOp's applicants fail OASC aptitudes? And what is the relationship to the AST scores? This is a question not even the RAF can answer as Pilots and WSO applicant do not take the AST.

This led me to pose the question what is the AST doing in the process? It has only been added recently - why? Is it to attempt to control numbers of people attending OASC (quantity)?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 30

reccemaster

craglyboy

Again to my recolection you don't have to take the AST if attending OASC be that someone applying for officer role or SNCO.

Crag....

Officers do NOT take AST currently. WSOp and DE ATC applicants DO.

Both sets then go onto OASC as normal.

Reply 31

craglyboy

6

I have had friends apply for WSOp and ATC SNCO and neither took AST during their applications, not saying that the process hasn't changed since they applied

AST for NCA/SNCO ATC candidates has almost certainly been introduced for standardisation of entry processes. There is potential for other airmen to complain that some airmen do not complete the same entry tests as are otherwise universal for airmen, ie AST. This could be a factor in any formal complaint about recruiting practices as well as creating an unnecessary whinge - there are enough valid ones already.

Conversely, I don't know what they did previously about NCA course failures, but without having previously taken AST tests, how are they offered re-trading?

Adding the AST requirement to NCA/SNCO ATC applications is very cheap to do, all the resources already exist, there is just a slight increase in demand/capacity, but that will be well within AFCO capacity to absorb.

If it reduces the number of NCA/SNCO ATC candidates, so what?

Reply 33

reccemaster

I always have a little chuckle when I see the word 'standardisation' and the armed forces together...lol

Reply 34

ProStacker

11

reccemaster

I always have a little chuckle when I see the word 'standardisation' and the armed forces together...lol

I always read the bitterness when I see posts like this.....lol

Reply 35

reccemaster

ProStacker

I always read the bitterness when I see posts like this.....lol

Your right. An opinion 'does' tend to be seen as bitterness these days. Heavens help you, if you question anything in the recruitment process.

I do however tip my hat to your sir, and say 'tushay'.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 36

ProStacker

11

touché is a much better word. IMHO of course.

Reply 37

Sam11

threeportdrift

Conversely, I don't know what they did previously about NCA course failures, but without having previously taken AST tests, how are they offered re-trading?

Adding the AST requirement to NCA/SNCO ATC applications is very cheap to do, all the resources already exist, there is just a slight increase in demand/capacity, but that will be well within AFCO capacity to absorb.

If it reduces the number of NCA/SNCO ATC candidates, so what?

Does this mean that if you apply for NCA and fail, you may still be offered other trade roles at Airmen/Airwoman level. On the other hand, is it sensible to apply for a trade role, with the long term aim of becoming NCA in the future?
Is this a realistic career path to becoming NCA, especially with the current recruiting situation?

Sam11

Does this mean that if you apply for NCA and fail, you may still be offered other trade roles at Airmen/Airwoman level. On the other hand, is it sensible to apply for a trade role, with the long term aim of becoming NCA in the future?
Is this a realistic career path to becoming NCA, especially with the current recruiting situation?

I presume that if you fail the AST having told the AFCO that you want to go NCA, but you have passed for other trades, you can start considering them straight away. I don't know what happens if you fail the NCA course once you are in training.

No, it would be a very bad idea to join in any other trade and hope to transfer to NCA later on in your career. It is not a realistic career path in any recruiting situation. The only time it would be sensible is when the RAF says that they would prefer NCA to have been Airman for a few years beforehand and open a formal career path. They haven't because it confers no significant advantage. Aim for the job you want to do until it becomes impossible, then look for alternative jobs. Don't assume that any future changes will be possible.

Reply 39

reccemaster

threeportdrift

Aim for the job you want to do until it becomes impossible, then look for alternative jobs.

I find myself agreeing here.

I failed the AST for aircrew and always had a plan B (alternative trade selection) which was and still is Flt Ops Officer. I had thought to switch to plan B the next day.... but slept on it and I'm sticking to my first trade; Plan A. 6 months is nothing to wait for the trade you want, and I'm not going to give up over one little setback, and the door is still currently open.

Once you decide on a trade, (first, second and possible third choice) - Stick to it, and drive for it as much, and as long as you can.

Make sure you know your first and second choices, and why. In my case; I picked NCO Aircrew first then ground trade commission second. For me it is the element of flying which is the driver. The job and career path of the trade and lifestyle of the service in general.

I'm too old for WSO, but I have researched the trade to allow myself the opportunity to answer any question of how I would fit into a team of WSO and WSOp's on a Nimrod etc.

If you find yourself streamed crewman as a WSOp, then the trade is quite different to that of a WSO.

WSOp Aptitude Test Vs RAF Officer Aircrew Aptitude Test

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you