Join TSR now and get all your career questions answeredSign up now

What is a competitive score for the RAF CBAT for pilot? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The minimum mark is 112, however i was wondering what the average score of a pilot would be?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by savva1995)
    The minimum mark is 112, however i was wondering what the average score of a pilot would be?
    Unhelpful answer, but it varies.

    Sometimes it might be 130+, other times it might be 1-teen.

    While the boarding officers make a point of saying you're not in competition with one another, you kinda are. Imagine if for a 6 month period everybody scores 114 or thereabouts and then you come in with a 124. That instantly becomes the best score and therefore most competitive. It doesn't matter that the same time last year everybody was getting 135*.

    *Hypothetical, but you get the point.

    I know people who've scored 140+ and not got in, I know people who scored 113 and did get in. Don't get too hung up on it. It's just one test out of many.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Also worth noting that it's only a small part of a successful boarding.

    Getting the best score you can (as long as it's above the pass mark) and also doing well in the other selection criteria will be better than getting 160 in CBAT and then being a marginal pass in everything else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm on IOT 49 as a Pilot and I got 123, I was told by those in the know that the recruitable mark currently is 121. Doesn't make you more competitive to get higher than that. They're looking for whether you have what it takes, if you do then they asses other areas of your personality to see whether you can work hard enough to exploit your score etc.
    What I will say is that it's directly age correlated. If you are 18, then your chances of getting 121+ are drastically lower than if you are 21.
    The majority of intake is in the form of 21/22 year old graduates as they are most likely to make it through flying training. If you aren't there yet, then don't worry if you miss out on 121. you'll have other opportunities to try again. Go to uni and join a UAS, if this is your dream then fight for it and don't stop until you get it. There are no golden tickets, everyone pays their way onto IOT in some form or another.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hertz32)
    I was told by those in the know that the recruitable mark currently is 121.

    What I will say is that it's directly age correlated. If you are 18, then your chances of getting 121+ are drastically lower than if you are 21.

    The majority of intake is in the form of 21/22 year old graduates as they are most likely to make it through flying training.
    Do you have any sources for these gems of gen?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Do you have any sources for these gems of gen?
    Current boarding officers, ex-IOT cadets (Now Jr officers), Current IOT cadets and another which I cannot divulge publicly for security reasons as it would make them personally identifiable, however they knew OASC from a command perspective.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hertz32)
    Current boarding officers, ex-IOT cadets (Now Jr officers), Current IOT cadets and another which I cannot divulge publicly for security reasons.
    But, as mentioned, just because that is a mark being talked about, it doesn't mean that getting above or below it is a guarantee of anything. It's important to put it in context.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    But, as mentioned, just because that is a mark being talked about, it doesn't mean that getting above or below it is a guarantee of anything. It's important to put it in context.
    Oh absolutely, the only thing you can definitively say about your score is that below 112, you won't get any further in the process. It's just a general recruiting guideline that they like 121+
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Worth noting that there are 19 year olds in pilot training, along with non commissioned Army types who are quite long in the tooth so the demographic of 21/22 year old graduates at IOT being the most likely to pass pilot training is probably more related to the fact more young graduates apply for pilot as opposed to they are more likely to pass it than another candidate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Worth noting that there are 19 year olds in pilot training, along with non commissioned Army types who are quite long in the tooth so the demographic of 21/22 year old graduates at IOT being the most likely to pass pilot training is probably more related to the fact more young graduates apply for pilot as opposed to they are more likely to pass it than another candidate.
    As a 19 year old about to go through Pilot training I will attest to that, however the IOT and flying training higher chop rates for DE's is down to maturity and ability to apply oneself to the course. these are things gained over the course of a degree.

    As a result DE's are more likely to be viewed as a training risk and are at a disadvantage compared to graduates. The application figures for DE's vs Grads are unrelated to their IOT and FT pass rates as they won't get into IOT and FT unless they pass selection, which DE's do less often...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is there really such a thing as a training risk when it comes to a competitive trade such as pilot? Is it worth taking a punt on a 19 year old when there are plenty of graduates around?

    I don't have sight of the statistics so it's interesting to hear. But then I'm still rather intrigued as to why the RAF doesn't have some form of grading as per the Army and RN given the weighting these two services give a grading report when it comes to boarding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Is there really such a thing as a training risk when it comes to a competitive trade such as pilot? Is it worth taking a punt on a 19 year old when there are plenty of graduates around?

    I don't have sight of the statistics so it's interesting to hear. But then I'm still rather intrigued as to why the RAF doesn't have some form of grading as per the Army and RN given the weighting these two services give a grading report when it comes to boarding.
    Nope, there is no one recruited knowingly as a training risk as a pilot (or any other trade). Why would they? This is exactly what I'm getting at when I say that there is a lower proportion of DE cadets on IOT, they know that DE's are more likely to get chopped, so they only recruit the ones that they are sure of.

    One of the people I have talked to did have sight of the statistics and explained why graduates are favoured. Afaik, there is a level of grading to the OASC process but I don't know whether your CBAT score is a contributing factor to your recruiting grade.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    By grading I mean flying aptitude is assessed over several hours of live flying with a QFI to assess the candidates ability to monkey see, monkey do, multi task etc in an unfamiliar and stressful environment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    By grading I mean flying aptitude is assessed over several hours of live flying with a QFI to assess the candidates ability to monkey see, monkey do, multi task etc in an unfamiliar and stressful environment.
    Not quite sure I follow, are you proposing that flying hours are used as part of the boarding process for selection pre-IOT?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, as the Army and RN do (albeit they do it post Dartmouth and unsuccessful candidates are restreamed Warfare).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Yes, as the Army and RN do (albeit they do it post Dartmouth and unsuccessful candidates are restreamed Warfare).
    I'd not heard that the AAC and FAA use flight hours for selection, though admittedly I'd never looked! I'm fairly certain the reason the RAF don't do the same is down to the fact that CBAT is a *very* reliable indicator of Flying training performance and the cost of both time and money that would be associated with such a scheme. When we have a currently increased rate of intake for pilots, I can't imagine we have too many instructors with the time and capacity free to waste on people that won't see a military cockpit again.

    Do bear in mind that nothing will get funded unless there is a demonstrable requirement for it. It would be interesting to compare the chop rates for comparable FAA and RAF pilots to see whether the flying hours during selection have a statistically significant difference. And even if they did, whether that difference was enough to be deemed good value when compared to the cost - both in capacity and money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The instructors wouldn't be the issue I feel as its contracted out to Babcock and is a nice little number for those who have retired from the military. The issue is probably due to airframe availability I'd expect rather than cost. It costs more to get someone far enough through the pilot course before they actually start flying than 13 hours in a Tutor. You'd be surprised how many people fail to make the cut on grading, the figure is probably around 25% I'd say over the people I've spoken to, and those are all people that have scored "pilot" scores on CBAT.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hertz32)
    I'd not heard that the AAC and FAA use flight hours for selection, though admittedly I'd never looked! I'm fairly certain the reason the RAF don't do the same is down to the fact that CBAT is a *very* reliable indicator of Flying training performance and the cost of both time and money that would be associated with such a scheme. When we have a currently increased rate of intake for pilots, I can't imagine we have too many instructors with the time and capacity free to waste on people that won't see a military cockpit again.

    Do bear in mind that nothing will get funded unless there is a demonstrable requirement for it. It would be interesting to compare the chop rates for comparable FAA and RAF pilots to see whether the flying hours during selection have a statistically significant difference. And even if they did, whether that difference was enough to be deemed good value when compared to the cost - both in capacity and money.
    Prospective pilots in the RN (and I think also the Army) do the aptitude tests as well as the grading, so it's not quite as simple as you explain.

    And they do the same tests, at Cranwell, on the same machines.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Prospective pilots in the RN (and I think also the Army) do the aptitude tests as well as the grading, so it's not quite as simple as you explain.

    And they do the same tests, at Cranwell, on the same machines.
    Aye, they do. I met a couple while I was doing CBAT. Their flight time is an extra on top of CBAT selection. I probably could have been clearer about that. If the chop rate for this flying grading is indeed 25% then there are some questions to be asked! Namely, why is the chop rate for the RAF during Flying training not 25% if all else is equal? Either the rate of retention for FAA pilots is drastically higher than RAF pilots during flying training because the bottom 25% are not present, or it's the same and there are some changes to be made.

    If your primary goal is to eliminate the bottom 25% of all pilot candidates to ensure a higher rate of retention through FT, then logically you would look at where this can be identified during the CBAT process, and then adjust the difficulty of the tests to suit, or create tests that measure what is assessed in the cockpit and add that to the battery of tests during CBAT.

    The forces are being made to make massive efficiency changes, and I would certainly look at where these savings could be made during selection if required. The Fast Jet course faces questions about low level training now, as it's not a type of flying that is of any operational use anymore. The only people flying low level operationally are the ME guys, who do so at night - which FJ's don't!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hertz32)
    Aye, they do. I met a couple while I was doing CBAT. Their flight time is an extra on top of CBAT selection. I probably could have been clearer about that. If the chop rate for this flying grading is indeed 25% then there are some questions to be asked! Namely, why is the chop rate for the RAF during Flying training not 25% if all else is equal? Either the rate of retention for FAA pilots is drastically higher than RAF pilots during flying training because the bottom 25% are not present, or it's the same and there are some changes to be made.

    If your primary goal is to eliminate the bottom 25% of all pilot candidates to ensure a higher rate of retention through FT, then logically you would look at where this can be identified during the CBAT process, and then adjust the difficulty of the tests to suit, or create tests that measure what is assessed in the cockpit and add that to the battery of tests during CBAT.

    The forces are being made to make massive efficiency changes, and I would certainly look at where these savings could be made during selection if required. The Fast Jet course faces questions about low level training now, as it's not a type of flying that is of any operational use anymore. The only people flying low level operationally are the ME guys, who do so at night - which FJ's don't!
    Couple of factors, chief among them being the sheer numbers that the RAF needs to take when compared to the FAA, especially in recent years. The RAF will clearly be forced to take people who, put simply, aren't quite as good as the top level.

    Indeed they do face savings, hence MFTS.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: September 24, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
How are you feeling about Results Day?
Useful resources

Articles:

Guide to the armed forcesGuide to the Royal Air ForceA job in the Army

Featured recruiter profiles:

Army logo

The Army is recruiting now

"With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

Quick Link:

Unanswered Armed Forces Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.