The actual failure rate, as I understand it from the folks actually in the know is 55% to 60%. Still seems something is wrong. But, it's probably just the fact that the gouge was not out yet.

Lots of speculation present, from percentage of "test failures," to whether anything will change based on past performance. However, if the testing/interviewing process is indeed changed from its first iteration, I sure hope those who failed the testing portion--the very first step--get a chance for a "do over." And without having to wait a year to re-apply.

Notional Management Explanation--"Oh woops folks, we didn't have it quite right the first time. Sorry about that whole "YOU FAILED" thing. But--not to worry-- we REALLY have it together now. So those of you who were NOT the most highly-qualified to be interviewed, NOW get a fighting chance at passing the previously-heinous test." :rolleyes:

The important thing to remember--follow the money. Anybody have a ballpark figure on what the "new & improved" interview website/testing programs are costing the company? And who profits from those? I'm all for progress, when it is, in fact, progress.

FEDEX needs to get this process right by 2013 --- because it looks like that's when the laws of pilot supply and demand won't be so strongly in our favor.

************************************************** **

I recall taking a computerized test during USAF flight screening in the mid 80s...you were placed in a little kiosk for a few minutes of warm up and then the test.

It wasn't going to be used to determine success or failure in that course, but supposedly used for baseline data, and then your performance was tracked during UPT.

I believe the AF ultimately decided the only way to see how well a person flys was to actually put them in an acft for a few hours (...something aerobatic, spinnable and flying overhead patterns preferred)--- and that's why the Flight Screening Program still exists 25 yrs later.

For a USAF guy, I'd want to look at his FEF (...Flight Evaluation Folder), lots of solid data in there --- I imagine the other mil guys could produce something similar, but civilian check-ride documentation wouldn't be as detailed.

I agree with a previous poster --- sure, use written tests if you want --- but make it just one aspect of a comprehensive interview process (...sim, interview, SBI etc) which looks at total performance across all areas.

I imagine someone at FEDEX spent some $$ on this testing and putting it "up front" during the process helps justify that expenditure.

...but the clock is still ticking towards 2013.

Where? The first link you had takes me to the company website, which as you suggest, has no interest in helping me prep for their test. And the second won't give access.

Google has led me to a few free prep sites, but no idea if they are the same thing. Anything you'd recommend? Heck, it's not that I mind paying, I just want to prep the right way.

Thanks

Albief15...your entire post was made invalid when you maintained that you were shooting 'Aliens' in the game 'DOOM'.

Anybody who has actually played the game knows that you play an astronaut shooting 'Demons from Hell'.

;-)

I guess that you never played the game then. You are actually a "Space Marine" shooting Demons from Hell, not an astronaut.:p

I love the chain gun dance....

Kinda makes you want to give up, don't it? And they worry about a pilot shortage... yeah..

Since when do you have to be a member of MENSA to be a pilot? What about "Have you ever failed a checkride" or "How many type ratings do you hold" as a better way to assess this skill and competency of a potential pilot??

Can't say I've ever seen one...at least not internationally (or Memphis for that matter.)