Fly.hr reviewed the official selection information for 20 airline-linked cadet programmes. At least 15 included an interview, 14 an aptitude or computer-based test, 12 a psychometric or personality component, and 10 a group exercise. None of the 20 published a flight-simulator assessment as a standard ab-initio selection stage.
“At least” is deliberate. Ten programmes published a full stage sequence, seven disclosed part of the process, and three did not provide enough detail on the official pages reviewed. A blank cell in the dataset means “not publicly found,” not “the airline definitely does not use it.”
I conducted this comparison because airline-cadet advice often turns one carrier’s selection process into a universal template. The data shows a common core, but not a standard process. British Airways, Air France, Wizz Air, KLM and Cathay Pacific all disclose multi-stage selection, yet they arrange and label the components differently.
The 20-program selection snapshot
| Published component | Programmes | Share of full sample |
|---|---|---|
| Medical or background requirement | 18 of 20 | 90% |
| Interview | 15 of 20 | 75% |
| Online/computer aptitude testing | 14 of 20 | 70% |
| Psychometric, personality or psychological component | 12 of 20 | 60% |
| Group exercise | 10 of 20 | 50% |
| Flight-simulator assessment | 0 of 20 | 0% |
| Positive applicant-paid selection fee disclosed | 3 of 20 | 15% |
Download the 20-program selection-stage dataset (CSV). It includes official URLs, access dates, programme status and notes for fields that require interpretation.
Methodology
The sample covers 20 airline-linked ab-initio pathways or airline-branded academies from 19 airlines. Europe is the main focus, with Middle Eastern, Asian and Oceanian programmes included where they provide useful comparisons. Data was collected on 28 September 2026 from official airline, career, academy or intake pages.
A programme could remain in the sample after its 2026 application window closed, because the published selection design was still available. Status is recorded so a closed intake is not mistaken for an open application.
I coded seven selection fields: aptitude/computer testing, psychometric or personality assessment, group exercise, interview, flight-simulator assessment, medical/background checks and applicant-paid fees. A stage counted only when the official source disclosed it. Generic claims such as “rigorous selection” did not count.
The analysis separates full from partial disclosure. Ten programmes gave a clear sequence, including British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa Group’s European Flight Academy, Wizz Air, KLM, Cathay and Qantas. Seven gave useful but incomplete detail. Three official pages described the programme without a usable stage sequence.
Finding 1: the interview is the nearest thing to a common stage
Fifteen of the 20 programmes explicitly mentioned an interview. That 75% is a minimum observed rate, not an estimate of actual industry use. An interview may still exist in programmes whose public copy does not describe it.
The label also hides different formats. Wizz Air publishes a personal interview after online aptitude and psychological tests and an in-person group exercise. Air France’s PSY 2 stage includes personality inventories, a group test and an individual interview. KLM describes an interview with a psychologist during its competency assessment and a later admissions-committee conversation. Cathay lists “interviews” as one step in a six-part sequence.
Those are not interchangeable. A motivation interview, psychologist interview and final airline panel can test overlapping qualities while using different evidence and scoring. Candidates should prepare examples of judgement, teamwork, learning and accountability, but verify the named format for their programme.
Finding 2: aptitude testing appeared in at least 70%
Fourteen programmes published an online or computer-based aptitude component. The content was broader than mental arithmetic alone.
| Programme | Published aptitude content |
|---|---|
| Wizz Air Pilot Academy | Visual memory, mental arithmetic, mathematics, physics and English in TestAir360 |
| Air France Cadets | Logic, reasoning, aeronautical knowledge and English at PSY 0; psychotechnical and psychomotor testing at PSY 1 |
| European Flight Academy | DLR testing of memory, spatial understanding, English, engineering, mathematics, attention, psychomotor ability and multitasking |
| KLM Flight Academy | Intellectual-capacity and sensorimotor stages covering numerical/verbal ability, logic, coordination, concentration and multitasking |
| Qantas Group Pilot Academy | Mandatory computer-based learning, aviation-theory assessment, psychometric/skills testing and core-skills testing where applicable |
The common thread is not one commercial test brand. It is simultaneous evidence that a candidate can learn technical material, process information accurately and perform under time pressure. Practising only one puzzle format may improve familiarity without addressing the wider capability being assessed.
Finding 3: psychometrics and group work are common, but not universal in the published record
Twelve programmes disclosed a psychometric, personality or psychological component. Ten disclosed a group exercise. The overlap matters because airlines are not selecting only for individual test performance.
British Airways publishes in-depth psychometric testing followed by a group exercise and multitasking assessment. Wizz Air places its psychological test before the in-person group exercise. Air France combines personality inventories, group work and an individual interview in PSY 2. KLM describes both an individual exercise with a psychologist or actor and a cooperative task.
A group exercise is therefore not a contest to speak most. The observable behaviours usually include listening, prioritising, making a reasoned contribution, inviting information, handling disagreement and moving a team toward a safe decision. The exact scoring model is airline-specific; the data only establishes how often official pages say group work is present.
Finding 4: no programme published a standard flight-simulator selection
None of the 20 ab-initio pathways published a flight-simulator assessment as a normal selection stage. That is the sharpest difference between this dataset and experienced-pilot recruitment.
It also makes sense. These programmes accept applicants with no flight experience, so an aircraft-handling check would risk measuring prior opportunity rather than trainability. Sensorimotor or multitasking tests can assess relevant capacity without asking a zero-hour candidate to fly an airline profile.
This finding should not be expanded beyond its scope. Some schools may use training devices, reach checks or undisclosed exercises. Air France’s official page mentions a possible simulator assessment in the professional-pilot stream; that was not coded as a standard cadet stage. Experienced direct-entry recruitment frequently does use a simulator. The Fly.hr airline pilot interview guide covers that separate preparation problem.
Finding 5: most processes are described, but only half are fully mapped
Seventeen of the 20 programmes provided at least some stage detail. Only 10 published a sequence complete enough to code as full. That leaves candidates with very different levels of certainty.
| Disclosure level | Programmes | What it means in this study |
|---|---|---|
| Full sequence | 10 | The official source orders the principal selection stages |
| Partial | 7 | One or more components are named, but the full route is not clear |
| Not disclosed | 3 | No usable stage sequence was found on the reviewed official programme material |
Disclosure quality is not a quality ranking of the training. It is a measure of what a candidate can verify before applying. An academy may run a sophisticated selection process and publish little about it; another may explain every step.
British Airways uses a three-stage public framework after its preparation hub: online assessments and a speaking activity, deeper psychometric testing plus a group/multitasking day and school interview, then a final assessment day. Wizz Air publishes four numbered stages and a later financial/background check. Cathay lists six steps from application to medical. KLM describes preselection plus four phases. These pages reduce uncertainty even though the exercises and scoring remain protected.
Finding 6: three programmes published an applicant-paid selection fee
Three of the 20 programme rows disclosed a positive fee paid before or during selection: €200 for Air France Cadets and €130 for each of the two Wizz Air programmes in the sample. The observed fee range was therefore €130–€200.
This is another minimum count. A blank fee field means no positive fee was found in the reviewed official material; it does not prove that every assessment, medical, document, travel or accommodation cost is covered. Wizz Air, for example, separately tells candidates to arrange their own assessment travel and accommodation.
What a candidate can prepare without guessing the test
- Read the official sequence first. Build a one-page timeline with location, format, documents, fees and travel. Do not substitute a forum account from a different intake.
- Refresh core maths, physics and English. Fourteen programmes publish aptitude testing, and several name these subjects directly.
- Practise under time constraints. Accuracy, sustained attention and recovery after an error matter more than memorising one vendor’s screenshots.
- Prepare evidence, not slogans. For interviews and group work, have concise examples of learning, teamwork, conflict, workload and responsibility.
- Complete medical research early. Eighteen programmes publish a medical or background gate. Paying for unofficial test preparation before understanding medical eligibility reverses the sensible order.
- Budget for the selection itself. Include published fees, medicals, documents, travel and accommodation even when training is funded.
What surprised me
The absence of a published simulator stage was more striking than the prevalence of any one test. Cadet discussions often borrow the language of experienced-pilot assessments, but the official ab-initio processes in this sample concentrated on aptitude, psychometrics, group behaviour and interviews.
The second surprise was transparency. Half the programmes provided a complete enough sequence to map, and another seven gave partial detail. Candidates do not need to rely entirely on anonymous recollections. The best first source is often the airline’s own preparation, FAQ or academy page.
Limitations
The study measures published process, not confidential scoring or every step actually used. Official pages can lag a live campaign. Partner-school processes may differ by gateway, particularly for Ryanair. Two Wizz Air pathways are counted separately because they have separate programme pages and eligibility, although they share a selection design.
The sample intentionally mixes funded cadet programmes, self-funded tagged routes and airline-branded academies. That makes the selection comparison useful, but it does not make the employment promises equivalent. Our separate cadet-programme eligibility audit distinguishes those relationships.
The citation-ready conclusion is narrow: in Fly.hr’s review of 20 official airline-linked pathway pages collected on 28 September 2026, at least 70% disclosed aptitude testing, 60% psychometric or personality assessment, 50% a group exercise and 75% an interview; none published a flight-simulator assessment as a standard ab-initio selection stage.
Qualified-pilot selection is a different stage
This study examines ab-initio programme entry, not every route labelled “cadet.” Already qualified applicants should use their airline’s invitation and the simulator assessment preparation guide. For the wider selection day, read the interview guide.
Comments